.■ff 


^ 


i-'- 


THIS  BOOK  BELONGED  TO  TBE  LIBRARY  OF 
Rev.     JOEL     IIAAVES,     D .    D . 


tihtavy  of t:Ke  CKeological  ^eminarjix 

PRINCETON    .    NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 


The  Library  of 
Center  Church,  Hartford 


AN   ESSAY     .   ,   ^a^ 


ON 


.  Xi^Wf' 


APOSTOLICAL   aUCCJtSSION ; 

A  DEFENCE  OF  A  GENUmE  >  BRQTESTANT  MINI>Til\', 

AGAINST  TH3  SXCLtJsJiVE  AND  INTOLERANT  SCHEMES 
OF  PAPISTS  AND  HIGH  CHURCHMEN ; 

AND  SUPPLYING 

A  GENERAL  ANTIDOTE  TO  POPERY : 

ALSO, 

A    CRITIQUE 

ON 

THE  APOLOGY  FOR  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION, 

BY  THE  HON.   AND  REV.  A.   P.   PERCEVAL,  B.  C.  L., 

Chaplain  in  ordinary  to  tlie  Queen : 

AND  A  REVIEW  OF  DR.  W.  F.  HOOK'S  SERMON 

ON  "HEAR  THE  CHURCH," 

PREACHED    BEFORE    THE    QUEEN,    JUNE    17,  1838: 

BY  THOMAS  POWELL, 

WESLEY  AN  MINISTER. 


NEW-YORK: 
PUBLISHED  BY  G.  LANE  &  P.  P.  SANDFORD, 

FOR  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,   AT  THE  CONFERENCE  OFFICE, 
200  MULBERRY-STREET. 

/.  Collord,  Printer. 
1842. 


I 


CONTENTS 


Pa-e 

Preface  to  the  first  edition  ..      , ^,       t 

Preface  to  the  secoi;4  editiaric  .;....; . . , . . ^ . ., ., 2..^.\  -   ,7 

Introduction "- . .  ,'■  J .  '.S. ..■ ". ....  1  .V 9 

SECTION  I. 

Statements    of  this   doctrine   of  apostolical    succession    by    its 

advocates -...-.     13 

SECTION  II. 
The  state  of  the  general  question ..........     31 

SECTION  III. 

No  positive  proof  from  the  Scriptures  of  these  high  Church  claims 
— The  commission  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  apostles — The 
claim  of  apostleship  for  bishops — High  priesthood  of  bishops 
— The  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus — The  angels  of  the  seven 
churches ~. 25 

SECTION  IV. 

The  general  spirit  and  scope  of  the  gospel  opposed  to  this  high 

Church  scheme 64 

SECTION  V. 

Scriptural  evidence  against  these  claims,  continued — Bishops  and 

presbyters  the  same,  proved  from  the  New  Testament .     80 

SECTION  VI. 

The  same  argument  continued — Presbyters  and  bishops  the  same, 

proved  from  the  purest  Christian  antiquity 89 

Appendix  to  section  vi 141 

SECTION  VII. 
The  Church  of  England  at  the  Reformation  against  these  claims  144 

SECTION  VIII. 

Bishops  and  presbyters  the  same  order,  shown  by  the  testimony 

of  all  the  Christian  churches  in  the  world »^  ..... «   169 


4  CONTENTS. 

\.'':  SECT10N^'?X. 

I  ':  ;:    ■■•"''  ",■']■  :    '■''  Pa§e 

Presbyters    and    bishops   showa   to  lie   the  ^ame  order,  by  the 

testimony  of  the  greatest  divines  of  all  ages .^ 201 

No  sufficient.  hiRcimfe/pvldeBce'eT  a  .'personal  succession  of  valid 

episcopal  ordiriatio'nfe .': ." ':  :■  .'■.'i'i.'i. 212 

Nullity  of  the  Popish  ordinations — Character  of  ihe  Popish  Church, 

and  Popish  bishops,  before  and  at  the  Reformation 224 

SECTION  XII. 
Popish  ordinations  of  English  bishops  before  the  Reformation  . . .   237 

SECTION  XIII. 
Nullity  of  Popish  ordinations  of  English  bishops,  concluded 250 

SECTION  XIV. 

Genuine  apostolical  succession 271 

Conclusion  of  the  Essay 295 

An  Appendix :  containing, — first,  A  Critique  on  the  Apology  for 
the  Doctrine  of  the  Apostolical  Succession,  by  the  Hon.  and 
Rev.  A.  P.  Perceval,  B.  C.  L 311 

Secondly,  A  Review  of  Dr.W,  F.  Hook's  Sermon,  Vicar  of  Leed's, 

on  " Hear  the  Church" ;..  340 


PREFACE   TO   THE   FIRST   EDITION. 


The  writer  of  this  Essay  is  alone  accountable  for  all 
its  faults  and  defects.  He  has  written  it  without  the 
counsel  or  the  help  of  any  man,  or  of  any  body  of  men. 
He  believes,  and  therefore  he  has  spoken.  Perhaps  it 
will  make  him  some  enemies  :  this  he  would  regret,  as 
he  desires,  as  much  as  lieth  in  him,  to  live  peaceably 
with  all  men.  If  maintaining  the  truth  should  make 
him  enemies,  he  cannot  help  it.  Some  may  think  that 
he  speaks  too  freely  on  certain  points,  and  as  to  certain 
orders  of  persons.  All  he  can  say  is,  that  he  thought 
truth  and  piety  required  it.  He  would  give  honour  to 
whom  honour  is  due  ;  but  he  hopes  he  shall  ever  show 
the  greatest  courtesy  to  the  truth  of  God.  While  men, 
or  the  ordinances  of  men,  oppose  not  the  truth  of  God, 
he  would  respect  them,  and  \vould  submit  to  them  for 
the  Lord's  sake ;  but  when  they  oppose  that  truth, 
either  in  principle  or  in  practice,  he  would  call  no  man 
father  upon  earth.  The  author  makes  no  pretensions 
to  style  :  he  only  regards  words  as  a  plain  man  does 
his  clothes  ;  not  for  ornament,  but  for  use  and  decency. 
The  confidence  of  his  language  arises  from  the  convic- 
tion of  his  own  mind,  and  not  from  any  design  to  im- 
pose his  opinions  upon  others.     He  dislikes  to  read  an 


6  PREFACE. 

author  who  does  not  appear  to  believe  himself.  If  any 
choose  to  controvert  his  positions,  he  freely  allows  them 
the  liberty  which  he  has  taken.  His  design  is  catho- 
lic, NOT  SECTARIAN.  Truth  is  his  object :  though  his 
efforts  should  perish,  yet  he  will  rejoice  in  the  triumph 
of  truth.  He  commits  his  work  to  God,  and  to  his 
church,  praying  that  the  kingdom  of  our  Redeemer 
may  speedily  come ;  that  peace  and  happiness,  truth 
and  justice,  religion  and  piety,  may  be  established 
among  us,  and  in  all  the  earth,  throughout  all  genera- 
tions !  Amen  \ 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  author,  on  issuing  a  second  edition  of  this  Es- 
say, embraces  the  opportunity  of  gratefully  acknow- 
ledging his  obhgations  to  the  public  for  their  favourable 
reception  of  his  work. 

The  difference  between  this  second  edition  and  the 
former  one,  consists  in  the  addition  of  some  important 
arguments ;  in  the  amplification  of  others  ;  and  in  the 
increase  of  highly  important  authorities  from  writers 
of  great  celebrity,  but  whose  works  are  expensive,  and 
rarely  to  be  met  with  by  general  readers.  One  of  the 
most  important  additions  will  be  found  in  the  second 
sub-section  of  section  3,  on  the  apostleship  of  bish- 
ops. On  a  mature  re-examination  of  the  works  of  high 
church  Episcopahans,  the  author  perceived  that  this 
was  a  position  which  they  esteemed  of  the  ve7y  great- 
est importance,  and  in  which  they  placed  the  greatest 
confidence.  He  set  himself,  therefore,  to  furnish  a 
complete  refutation  of  it.  The  reader  is  requested  to 
give  that  sub-section  a  very  attentive  perusal. 

It  will  be  found  that  several  of  the  additional  notes 
contain  an  exposure  of  the  fallacies  in  the  "  Vindication 
of  the  Episcopal  or  Apostolical  Succession,  by  the 
Rev.  J.  Sinclair,  M.  A.,  of  Pembroke  College,  Oxford, 


»  PREFACE. 

Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society,  Edinburgh,  Minister  of 
St.  Paul's  Episcopal  chapel,  Edinburgh,  &c." 

Dr.  Hook  having  requested  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  A. 
P.  Perceval,  chaplain  in  ordinary  to  the  queen,  to  take 
up  the  defence  of  the  high  church  succession  scheme, 
the  honourable  and  reverend  gentleman  has  done  so ; 
and  his  work  having  been  announced  by  the  doctor's  party 
as  a  complete  answer  to  the  Essay,  the  author  has  added 
a  Critique  on  that  work.  He  thinks  the  examination 
of  these  two  specimens  of  defence  by  Mr.  Sinclair  and 
the  doctor's  chosen  champion,  Mr.  Perceval,  will 
suffice,  and  will  show  the  reader  how  futile  all  such 
defences  are,  when  tried  on  the  principles  maintained 
in  this  Essay. 

The  Review  of  Dr.  Hook's  sermon,  on  *'  Hear  the 
Church,"  having  a  very  near  affinity  to  the  argument 
of  the  Essay,  and  that  Review  having  been  considered 
a  complete  antidote  to  the  doctor's  main  fallacy,  it  is 
retained  in  the  present  edition. 

A  general  index  is  added  to  the  whole. 


INTRODUCTION. 


"  Stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  you  free,"  is  a  divine  command.  The  truth  of  God, 
at  the  Reformation,  made  the  Protestant  churches  free 
from  priestly  tyranny,  and  the  traditions  of  men.  It  is 
the  duty  of  every  Protestant  to  watch  against  all  encroach- 
ments upon  this  liberty. 

Popery  commenced  on  the  principle  of  exclusiveness 
and  bigotry.  "  Out  of  the  church  is  no  salvation ; — the 
Church  of  Rome  is  the  only  true  church ; — ergo,  out  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  is  no  salvation."  This  is  the  logic 
of  Rome ;  enforced,  according  to  opportunity  of  power 
and  circumstances,  by  excommunication  and  confiscation ; 
by  fire  and  fagot  to  the  body,  and  perdition  to  the  soul, 
against  all  who  have  dared  to  resist  its  claims. 

All  exclusiveness  and  bigotry  generate  intolerance. 
When  any  part  of  God's  church  asserts  its  right  to  the 
whole  inheritance  of  his  people,  it  publishes  an  act  of 
ejectment  against  the  rest ;  and  the  spirit  that  dictated  the 
ejectment  will,  when  circumstances  seem  favourable,  en- 
deavour to  effect  its  object  by  persecuting  those  who  do 
not  admit  this  exclusive  claim.  To  admit  an  unjust  claim, 
is  to  encourage  injustice.  Our  Christian  birthright  is  a 
trust  from  heaven ;  and  we  cannot  "  sell  it  for  a  mess  of 
pottage,"  without  an  Esau's  profaneness. 

A  certain  class  of  men  have,  at  different  times  since 
the  Reformation,  come  forward  to  effect  that  in  the  Pro- 
testant church  which  Popery  endeavours  to  effect  as  to 

1* 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

the  church  universal.  This  they  try  to  accomplish  by  a 
sophistical  method  of  teaching  the  doctrine  of  apostolical 
succession.  By  this  doctrine  they  excommunicate  all  the 
other  Protestant  churches  in  Europe.  This  is  done  se- 
riously and  in  earnest,  and  that,  too,  by  men  of  consider- 
able influence  and  learning.  The  writer  is  convinced  that 
the  broad  absurdity  of  their  arrogant  pretensions  will  be 
sufficient  to  lead  many  to  treat  those  claims  with  just 
contempt.  However,  there  are  some  that  seem  willing  to 
receive  the  bold  assertions  and  pretensions  of  such  men, 
as  proofs  sufficient  to  support  their  claims.  Others,  who 
do  not  believe  them,  would  yet  be  glad  to  see  plain  rea- 
sons for  rejecting  them.  It  is  for  this  class  of  persons, 
chiefly,  that  the  following  Essay  is  designed. 

Another  object  with  the  ^vriter  is  to  develop  the  nature 
of  genuine  Protestantism,  and  to  supply  an  antidote  to 
Popery.  Popery  is  a  deep-laid  scheme.  Its  principal 
BASIS  is  priestly  arrogance,  generating  the  direst  tyranny. 
This  is  not  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  but  in  the 
traditions  of  men.  This  foundation  must  be  exposed  and 
broken  up,  or  in  vain  shall  we  attempt  to  break  the  iron 
yoke  of  Popery.  Now  it  is  a  matter  worthy  of  the  most 
serious  and  careful  observation  by  the  reader,  that  nearly 
all  the  great  succession  divines  are  semi-papists.  Arch- 
bishop Laud  is  supposed  to  be  the  father  of  them.  Among 
his  distinguished  disciples  will  be  found  Dr.  Hickes, 
Bishop  Taylor,  the  authors  of  "  The  Oxford  Tracts  for  the 
Times,"  Dr.  Hook,  vicar  of  Leeds,  &c. 

The  reader  may  be  surprised  to  find  the  celebrated 
Bishop  Taylor  represented  as  a  semi-papist ;  let  him  read 
his  "  Clems  Do?nini,"  and  his  "  Episcopacy  Asserted,"  and 
he  will  see  the  evidence  of  the  statement.  Bishop  Tay- 
lor's splendid  talents  have  imposed  upon  many,  and  have 
gained  him  more  credit  than  he  deserved.  Like  many 
pious  Papists,  he  could  write  well  upon  devotional  sub- 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

jects  ;  but  he  is  no  safe  guide  as  a  theologian.  Dr.  Hook, 
and  the  authors  of  "  The  Oxford  Tracts  for  the  Times," 
are  evidently  introducing  Popery  into  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  spreading  it  in  the  nation. 

Many  of  the  clergy  of  the  Established  Church  are 
strongly  opposed  to  the  errors  of  these  men,  and  they 
have  spoken  out  manfully  in  the  pages  of  the  "  Christian 
Observer."  They  seem,  however,  to  be  very  tender  of 
this  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession.  They  perhaps  think 
it  is  calculated  to  add  importance  to  their  ministry  in 
opposition  to  the  Methodists  and  Dissenters.  A  spirit  of 
exclusiveness  is,  indeed,  very  general  among  the  clergy 
of  the  Established  Church. 

An  opinion,  too,  of  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy  has 
spread  extensively  in  the  Church  of  England :  most  of 
its  clergy  seem  willing  to  believe  it.  Hence,  generally 
speaking,  they  are  not  the  men  from  whom  a  refutation  of 
this  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  is  to  be  expected : 
yet  it  evidently  increases  Popery  in  the  Church  and  in  the 
nation.  Its  exposure  and  refutation,  therefore,  may  be  a 
general  benefit  to  Protestantism. 

It  will  not  be  amiss  here  to  obviate  a  difficulty  that  may 
arise  in  some  minds.  Perhaps  some  persons,  especially 
the  members  of  the  Establishment,  may  think  that  the 
writer  is  attacking  the  Church.  If  by  "  the  ChurcN'  they 
will  understand  the  principles  of  the  Reformers,  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  Bishop  Jewel,  &c.,  on  the  questions  here  dis- 
cussed; then  he  most  unhesitatingly  declares,  that,  with 
some  trifling  exceptions,  he  heartily  embraces  them,  and 
means  to  defend  them  ;  but  if  by  "  the  ChurcW  they  mean 
the  principles  of  such  men  as  Archbishop  Laud,  and  his 
disciples  the  Oxford  Tract-men,  Dr.  Hook,  &c.,  then  he 
does  controvert  them ;  because  he  believes  them  to  be  un- 
scriptural,  antiprotestant,  exclusive,  intolerant,  and  Popish. 
The  author,  indeed,  writes  not  to  attack,  but  to  defend. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

These  men  make  the  attack.  The  consequence  of  their 
principles  is  to  charge  all  other  ministers  as  thieves  and 
robbers  ;  they  try  to  trouble  and  frighten  their  flocks  ;  they 
expect  their  gain  by  gathering  those  they  never  sought  out 
of  the  wilderness :  what  sort  of  shepherds,  then,  shoidd 
we  be  to  look  with  indiflerence  upon  such  proceedings  1 

In  prosecuting  the  subject,  we  shall  first  produce  the 
statements  of  this  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  from 
the  advocates  of  the  system.  We  shall  then  endeavour  to 
give  the  true  state  of  the  question,  and  refute  the  arguments 
advanced  m  favour  of  that  system.  In  the  next  place,  the 
arguments  against  these  claims  will  be  brought  forward, 
showing  the  whole  to  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the 
Reformation,  and  leading  to  persecution  and  Popery. 
Lastly,  the  nature  of  the  only  genuine  and  absolutely  essen- 
tial apostolical  succession  will  be  briefly  unfolded.  The 
whole  will  be  concluded  with  some  practical  inferences, 
and  counsels  of  peace  to  the  Protestant  churches  at  large. 


APOSTOLICA3:.::SlLjCeES&T0N: 


STATEMENTS  OF  THIS   DOCTRINE   OF' APOStOLICAf,' SIITCCeS- 
SION  BY  ITS  ABLEST  ADVOCATES. 

The  design  of  the  following  pages  is,  first, — the  refuta- 
tion of  certain  errors  fraught  with  pernicious  consequences 
to  the  peace  of  the  whole  Christian  church  ;  and  then  the 
establishment  of  Scriptural  truth  in  their  place.  To  give 
the  authors,  accused  of  maintaining  these  errors,  as  fair  a 
trial  as  the  limits  of  this  Essay  will  admit,  we  shall,  in  the 
commencement,  introduce  copious  extracts  from  the  works 
of  the  most  distinguished  among  them.  This  will  enable 
the  reader  to  judge  of  the  pertinence  of  the  arguments 
against  them.  The  importance  of  the  subject,  and  the 
celebrity  of  the  writers,  Avill,  it  is  hoped,  prevent  the  ex- 
tracts from  appearing  tedious. 

We  shall  arrange  them  under  three  heads  : — . 

1.  As  to  their  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  ; 

2.  As  to  the  necessity  of  ordination  by  succession 
bishops  ; 

3.  As  to  the  nullity  or  worthlessness  of  all  other  ordi- 
nations, and  the  ministrations  belonging  to  them. 

First,  then,  as  to  their  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession. 
Bishop  Taylor's  "  Episcopacy  Asserted"  was  published 
by  royal  command.  He  had  splendid  talents  :  and  doubt- 
less he  exerted  them  to  the  utmost  to  please  his  royal 
master,  and  to  support  a  cause  which  he  enthusiastically 
admired.  We  select  him  as  a  leading  advocate,  to  give  the 
cause  the  fairest  chance  of  success.  He  closes  his  argu- 
ment for  the  divine  right  of  this  doctrine  of  apostolical  suc- 
cession, as  follows  : — "  The  Summe  of  all  is  this,  that 
Christ  did  institute  Apostles  and  Presbyters,  or  72  Disci- 
ples.    To  the  Apostles  he  gave  a  plenitude  of  power,  for 


14        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  whole  commission  was  given  to  them  in  as  great  and 
cpx^ipfehensi'v^e  pjauses  ay  wi^e,in:iagi;(T[able,  for  by  vertue  of 
it,  they  fftCeived  a  powey  cf  giving  the  Holy  Ghost  in  con- 
firmation,, aad  of  ^i-ving,  ,his'^ra(.ce  in  the  collation  of  holy 
orders,  'a.,  pcvver  o'f-jmjs'dictioh  and  authority  to  governe  the 
Church" ;  and  this  power  was  not  te?7iporari/,  but  successive 
and  perpkudllt  and  y^d'Sf  •ikteikled  as  an  ordinary  office  in 
the  Church,  so  th^t  the' i>ilc'c'e6'sors  of  the  Apostles  had  the 
'«ariie,  righu  and  in^tit^atipri  that  ,"he  /i.'po3ties  themselves  ha,d, 
^j[(f  though  th3  pfh<op all  jnissio'i  Was  iiot  immediate,  as 
of  the  Apostles  it  was,  yet  the  commission  and  institution 
of  the  function  was  all  one.  But  to  the  72  Christ  gave  no 
commission  but  to  preaching,  which  was  a  very  limited 
commission.  There  was  all  the  immediate  Divine  institu- 
tion of  Presbyterate  as  a  distinct  order,  that  can  be  fairly 
pretended.  But  yet  farther,  these  72  the  Apostles  did  ad- 
mit in  partem  solicitudinis,  and  by  new  ordination  or  dele- 
gation Apostolicall,  did  give  them  power  of  administering 
Sacraments,  of  absolving  sinners,  of  governing  the  church 
in  conjunction  and  subordination  to  the  Apostles,  of  which 
they  had  a  capacity  by  Christ's  calling  them  at  first  in  sor- 
tern  Ministerii,  but  the  exercise,  and  the  actuating  of  this 
capacity  they  had  from  the  Apostles.  So  that  not  by 
Divine  ordination,  or  immediate  commission  from  Christ, 
but  by  derivation  from  the  Apostles  (and  therefore  in 
minority  and  subordination  to  them)  the  Presbyters  did 
exercise  acts  of  order  and  jurisdiction  in  the  absence  of 
the  Apostles  or  Bishops,  or  in  conjunction  consiliary,  and 
by  way  of  advice,  or  before  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop 
to  a  particular  Church.  And  all  this  I  doubt  not,  but  was 
done  by  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  were  all  other 
Acts  of  Apostolicall  ministration,  and  particularly  the  in- 
stitution of  the  other  order,  viz.  of  Deacons,  This  is  all 
that  can  be  proved  out  of  Scripture  concerning  the  com- 
mission given  in  the  institution  of  Presbyters,  and  this  I 
shall  afterwards  confirme  by  the  practice  of  the  Catholick 
Church,  and  so  vindicate  the  practices  of  the  present 
Church  from  the  common  prejudices  that  disturbe  us,  for 
by  this  account.  Episcopacy  is  not  only  a  Divine  institution, 
but  the  ONLY  order  that  derives  immediately  from  Christ."* 
Dr.  Hickes,  another  distinguished  scholar  and  divine  of 
*  Episcopacy  Asserted,  pp.  46-48,  ed.  Ox.  1G43,  4to. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         15 

the  Church  of  England,  denominated  bishop  and  confessor 
by  the  Oxford  Tract-nieH,.ilT(3S- *apealj:S'; ->•—•' iBis\i((ps -are 
appointed  to  succeed  the  :ao(:t^*4€'s,„and  like  ihejfl.  tn  ^taao 
in  Christ's  place,  and  exercise  his  kin;yl7,' priestly,,  and 
prophetical  office  over  their  ilxDcV,^,; .  caij  yoii,  ;\vhe5i  you 
consider  this,  think  it  novel,  or  iipprpper./ or  uncouth,  to 
call  them  spiritual  princes,  ano  their- dioct^ 5 3 eg,  princi- 
palities, when  they  have  ev&iy 'thing  m  their- office  that 
can  denominate  a„p<:ini?e  ?  'Fpr ,  -whal;  -, is  :?c  .prince, ^'but'.o 
chief  ruler  of  a  sofiety^  tba^  batk  autiifrity. over  the.? esV. 
to  make  laws  for  it,  to  challenge  the  obedience  of  all  the 
members,  and  all  ranks  of  men  in  it,  a.nd  powei^  to  coerce 
them,  if  they  will  not  obey  ?  .  .  .  .  They  stand  in  God's 
and  Christ's  stead  over  their  flocks,  the  clergy  as  well  as 
the  people  are  to  be  subject  to  them,  as  to  the  vicegerents 

of  our  Lord And  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  the 

bishops,  like  spiritual  princes,  exercise  the  same  coercive 
authority  that  they  did  in  inflicting  spiritual  censures  upon 
their  disobedient  subjects.  It  would  require  a  volume  to 
show  you  the  various  punishments  with  which  they  cor- 
rected their  disobedience.  They  degraded  clergymen  from 
their  order,  and  as  for  the  people,  they  put  down  those 
who  were  in  the  uppermost  class  of  communion  into  the 
station  of  penitents,  and  other  inferior  places  ;  others  they 
forbid  to  come  further  than  the  church  doors,  and  those 
whom  they  did  not  so  degrade,  they  often  suspended  from 
the  sacrament.  The  contumacious  both  of  the  clergy  and 
laity  they  punished  with  excommunication ;  from  which, 
after  very  long  and  very  severe  penances,  they  absolved 
some  ;  and  others,  who  were  enormous,  and  very  frequent 
lapsers,  they  would  not  reconcile  to  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  but  in  the  danger,  and  prospect  of  death.  I  need 
not  tell  you  how  much  the  ancient  Christians  stood  in  avje 
of  the  APOSTOLICAL  ROD  in  the  hands  of  their  bishops,  es- 
pecially of  excommunication,  which  they  looked  upon  as 
the  spiritual  axe  and  sword  to  the  soul,  and  thought  more 
terrible  than  death."* 

And  Dr.  Hook,  the  present  vicar  of  Leeds,  thus  states 

his  views  on  the  subject : — "  Some  persons  seem  to  think 

that  the  government  of  the  Church  was  essentially  different 

in  the  days  of  the  apostles  from  what  it  is  now,  because 

*  On  the  Dignity  of  the  Epis.  Order,  pp.  191.  &c.  Lend.    1707,  8vo. 


16  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

they  do  not  find  the  names  and  titles  of  the  ecclesiastical 
;:9j!ficfer,s  5)5re<:isp;iy  the  sjim?i  '',jppr  ^?istance,  as  I  have  just 
:si^.id,  h&.whom-we  now  cqH  <h.fresb^ter,  or  priest,  was  fre- 
qnentivst^'ieii  ir-  ihe  Neticf  {Ff^&tament,  a  bishop.  But  it  is 
not  for  .iiames' "t-n&t;wG'- contend.  We  ask  what  was  the 
fact,  and. the  fact?ixtSi>tMs:  that  the  officer  whom  we  now 
call  a  hi&ho>>,  w^s\&y^rst  called  an  apostle,  although  after- 
ward it  was' thotight'btettM-'  to  confine  the  title  of  apostle 
"tf^  thq.se'who  liatl  seeij' the  y^Or^  Jsb^ug, ''while  their  success- 
lots  ^  £X'^rcising;Uie  scs7iie.rights'3.l\(ii'e.tithority,  though  unen- 
dowed with  miraculous  powers,  contented  themselves  with 
the  designation  of  bishops.  After  this  the  title  was  never 
given  to  the  second  order  of  the  ministry The  pre- 
lates, who  at  this  present  time  rule  the  churches  of  these 
realms,  were  validly  ordained  by  others,  who,  by  means  of 
an  unbroken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination,  derived  their 
mission  from  the  apostles  and  from  our  Lord.  This  con- 
tinual descent  is  evident  to  every  one  who  chooses  to  in- 
vestigate it.  Let  him  read  the  catalogues  of  our  bishops 
ascending  up  to  the  most  remote  period.  Our  ordinations 
descend  in  a  direct  unbroken  liiie  from  Peter  and  Paul,  the 
apostles  of  the  circumcision  and  the  Gentiles.  These 
great  apostles  successively  ordained  Linus,  Cletus,  and 
Clement,  bishops  of  Rome  ;  and  the  apostolic  succession 
was  regularly  continued  from  them  to  Celestine,  Gregory, 
and  Vitalianus,  who  ordained  Patrick  bishop  for  the  Irish, 
and  Augustine  and  Theodore  for  the  English.  And  from 
those  times  an  uninterrupted  series  of  valid  ordinations  has 
carried  down  the  apostolical  succession  in  our  churches  to 
the  present  day.  There  is  not  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon, 
among  us,  who  cannot,  if  he  please,  trace  his  own  spirit- 
ual descent  from  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul."* 

In  the  next  place,  let  us  hear  what  is  said  about  ordi- 
nation by  succession  bishops,  even  when  wicked  and 
heretical. 

Archdeacon  Mason's  "  Defence  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land JMinistry"  was  begun  and  completed  by  the  patronage, 
and  under  the  counsel  of  Abbot,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  was  dedicated  to  King  James  I.  Its  authority  is  high 
among  the  Church  of  England  divines.  He  ^vrites  in  the 
form  of  a  dialogue,  between  a  Romish  priest,  Philodoxus, 
*  Two  Sennons  on  the  Church  and  the  Establishment. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        I't 

and  a  Church  of  England  divine,  called  Orthodoxus. 
The  title  of  chapter  eleventh,  book  2,  is  this,  "  Does 
schism  or  heresy  take  Rway  the  power  of  consecration  ?" 
He  goes  on  to  bring  Philodoxus  to  confess  that  neither 
heresy,  (p.  175,)  nor  degradation  from  the  office  of  a  bishop, 
(p.  176,)  nor  schism,  (p.  180,)  nor  the  most  extreme 
WICKEDNESS,  [quamvis  enim  viri  essent  omnium  sceleratissi- 
mi,  p.  178,)  nor  "any  thing  else,  can  deprive  a  person 
once  made  a  bishop  of  the  power  of  giving  true  orders." 

"  Orthodoxus.  Quod  candid^  largiris,  cupidi  arripimus.^^ 
The  Church  of  England  divine  says,  ^^  what  you,^^  the 
Papists,  "  candidly  grant,  we  joyfully  embrace  !  !"* 
Every  pious  reader  must  be  grieved  to  the  heart  to  see  the 
defenders  of  an  important  section  of  the  Protestant  church 
joyfully  embrace  the  impious  position,  that  a  bishop  is  a 
true  bishop,  though  a  heretic,  and  the  most  wicked  of  men  ! 
— and  all  for  what  ?  why,  merely  to  keep  up  the  figment 
of  episcopal  ordination  and  succession.  Indeed  this  is 
inevitable  on  the  exclusive  scheme  of  episcopacy,  jure  di- 
vino.  If  this  perishes,  they  suppose  their  Christianity 
perishes.  It  must  perish,  on  their  scheme,  or  come  through 
the  hands  of  the  moral  monsters  of  Rome.  Hence  these 
impious  positions  are  joyfully  embraced  to  defend  it. 

Lastly,  these  authors  say,  that  no  ordinations  but  such 
as  are  performed  by  succession  bishops  are  valid  and 
divine.  This,  also,  with  them  is  a  necessary  consequence. 
Thus  Bishop  Taylor:  "Without  (the  offices  of  episco- 
pacy,) no  priest,  no  ordination,  no  consecration  of  the  sacra- 
ment, no  absolution,  no  rite,  or  sacrament,  legitimately  can 
be  performed  in  order  to  eternity. "f 

The  learned  Dodwell  declares — "  None  but  the  bishop 
can  unite  us  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Whence  it  will 
further  follow  that  whoever  are  disunited  from  the  visible 
communion  of  the  Church  on  earth,  and  particularly ^rom 
that  visible  communion  of  the  bishop,  must  consequently  be 
disunited  from  the  whole  visible  catholic  Church  on  earth  ; 
and  not  only  so,  but  from  the  invisible  communion  of  the 
holy  angels  and  saints  in  heaven,  and,  which  is  yet  more, 
from  Christ  and  God  himself  ...  It  is  07ie  of  the  most 
dreadful  aggravations  of  the  condition  of  the  damned  that 

*  Vindica9  Eccles.  Anglicanae,  edit.  sec.  fol.   .Lond.,  1638. 
t  Episcopacy  Asserted,  p.  197. 


18         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

they  are  banished  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from 
the  glory  of  his  power.  The  same  is  their  condition  also 
who  are  disunited  from  Christ  by  being  disunited  from  his 
visible  representative,^^  (the  bishop.)* 

Dr.  Hook,  on  this  point,  says,  "  You  will  observe  how 
important  all  this  is  which  I  have  now  laid  before  you. 
Unless  Christ  be  spiritually  present  with  the  ministers  of 
religion  in  their  services,  those  services  will  be  vain.  But 
the  oxLY  ministrations  to  which  he  has  promised  his 
presence  is  to  those  of  the  bishops  who  are  successors 
of  the  first  commissioned  apostles,  and  the  other  clergy 
acting  under  their  sanction,  and  hy  their  authority." 

"  I  know  the  outcry  which  is  raised  against  this — the 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church  for  eighteen  hundred 
years — I  know  the  outcry  that  is  raised  against  it  by  those 
sects  which  can  trace  their  origin  no  higher  than  to  some 
celebrated  preacher  at  the  Reformation.  But  I  disregard 
it,  because  I  shall,  by  God's  help,  continue  to  do,  what  I 
have  done  ever  since  I  came  among  you — namely,  declare 
the  whole  counsel  of  God,  icithout  regard  to  consequences 
or  respect  of  persons,  and  at  the  same  time,  as  far  as  in 
me  lies,  live  peaceably  with  all  men."t 

A  passage  or  two  from  the  Oxford  "  Tracts  for  the 
Times"  may  suffice,  though  all  their  volumes  are  impreg- 
nated with  the  same  principles. 

"  The  hold,'''  say  they,  "  which  the  propagandists  of  the 
'  Holy  Discipline'  obtained  on  the  fancies  and  affectioiis  of 
the  people,  of  whatever  rank,  age,  and  sex,  depended  veiy 
much  on  their  incessant  appecds  to  t\\eu  fancied  apostolical 
succession.  They  found  persons  willing  and  eager  to  suffer 
or  rebel,  as  the  case  might  be,  for  their  system  ;  because 
they  had  possessed  them  with  the  notion,  that  it  was  the 
system  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  '  a  divine  epis- 
copate ;'  so  Beza  called  it.  Why  should  we  despair  of 
obtaining,  in  time,  an  influence,  far  more  legitimate  and 
less  dangerously  exciting,  but  equally  searching  and  ex- 
tensive, by  the  diligent  inculcation  of  our  true  and  Scrip- 
tural claim  V'\ 

*  One  Altar  and  One  Priesthood,  1683,  pp.  387  and  397. 
t  Two  Sermons  on  the  Church  and  the  Establishment ;   and  see 
Hickes  on  the  Christian  Priesthood,  Pref.  194. 
t  No.  4,  p.  7. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         19 

"  I  fear  we  have  neglected  the  real  ground  on  which 
our  authority  is  built, — our  apostolical  descent."* 

"  A  person  not  commissioned  from  the  bishop,  may  use 
the  words  of  baptism,  and  sprinkle  or  bathe  with  the  water, 
on  earth,  but  there  is  no  promise  from  Christ,  that  such  a 
man  shall  admit  souls  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  A  person 
not  commissioned  may  break  bread,  and  pour  out  wine,  and 
pretend  to  give  the  Lord's  supper,  but  it  can  afford  no 
comfort  to  any  to  receive  it  at  his  hands,  because  there  is 
no  warrant  from  Christ  to  lead  communicants  to  suppose 
that  while  he  does  so  here  on  earth,  they  will  be  partakers 
in  the  Saviour's  heavenly  body  and  blood.  And  as  for  the 
person  himself,  who  takes  upon  himself  without  warrant  to 
minister  in  holy  things,  he  is  all  the  while  treading  in  the 
footsteps  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  whose  awful 
punishment  you  read  of  in  the  book  of  Numbers.  (Com- 
pare Numbers  xvi  with  Jude  2.")t 

Here  the  reader  sees  the  main  featiu-es  of  this  system ; 
-5-a  system  supported  by  a  large  number  of  learned  and 
influential  di\dnes  in  the  Church  of  England  since  the  time 
of  Archbishop  Laud.  It  has  lately  been  revived  by  the 
authors  of  the  Oxford  "  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  Dr.  Hook, 
vicar  of  Leeds,  &c.  This  doctrine  is  the  root  of  all  their 
errors  and  Popish  proceedings.    By  such  a  scheme  as  this 

they  FORGE  A  CHAIN  TO  BIND  HEAVEN  AND  EARTH,  GoD 
AND  MAN,  TO  THE  ACTS  OF  PRIESTLY  ARROGANCE.       AlloW 

the  above  doctrine,  and  though  Satan  and  his  host  incarnate 
should  become  ordained  by  succession  bishops,  yet  no 
ordinances  but  such  as  they  administer  have  the  promise 
of  Christ,  but  are  all  vain !  This  scheme  of  Anglican- 
Popery  will  be  seen  to  have  a  little  variation  in  its  ma- 
chinery from  Roman-Popery ;  but  they  are  both  animated 
by  the  same  genius,  and  both  terminate  in  the  same  con- 
sequences. 

The  reader  will  not  regret  to  see,  in  the  commencement 
of  this  Essay,  the  opinions  of  two  celebrated  foreign  Pro- 
testant divines  on  this  subject :  the  one,  of  the  Lutheran 
church,  and  the  other,  of  the  reformed  French  church. 
Chemnitius,  a  greatly  admired  Lutheran  divine,  in  his  ad- 
mirable Examination  or  Confutation  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  says,  "  By  this  measure,  they  (the  Papists)  endea- 
*  No.  1,  p.  2.  t  No.  35,  pp.  2,  3. 


20        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

vour  not  so  much  to  reproach  our  (the  Protestant)  churches, 
as,  at  one  stroke,  to  give  a  mortal  stab,  and  to  destroy  them 
from  the  foundation.  In  their  clamours  by  which  they 
labour  to  establish  this  point,  they  contend,  that  in  our 
churches  is  no  true  and  legitimate  administering  of  the 
sacraments;  that  God  by  our  labours  will  give  no  blessing, 
no  pardon,  no  remission  of  sins;  that  we  can  have  no  true 
sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  all  our 
ministers  are  thieves  and  robbers,  not  having  entered  by 
the  true  door"  (of  apostolical  succession)  "  into  the  sheep- 
fold.  An  atrocious  denunciation  indeed !  And  they  give 
no  reason  for  it  but  this,  that  the  ministers  of  our  (Pro- 
testant) churches  are  not  called,  sent  forth,  ordained, 
shaven,  and  anointed  by  Popish  bishops."* 

Now  it  is  clear  that  there  is  a  perfect  identity  in  the 
matter  urged  against  the  reformers  by  the  Papists,  and  that 
urged  by  high  Church  of  England  clergymen  against  all 
Protestants  who  have  not  episcopal  ordination.  If  the 
latter  have  not  ventured  to  be  so  bold  in  their  denuncia- 
tions, we  can  easily  see  the  reason.  They  know  the  full 
consequences,  boldly  declared,  would,  with  many  Protest- 
ants, even  in  the  Church  of  England,  work  as  an  argu- 
ment am  ad  absurdum :  the  absurdity  would  produce  re- 
action. They,  therefore,  generally  throw  it  out  to  work 
upon  weak,  credulous,  unsuspecting,  or  bigoted  minds. 

Claude,  in  his  able  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  says, 
"  And  to  speak  my  own  thoughts  freely,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  that  firm  opinion  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  episcopacy , 
that  goes  so  high  as  to  own  no  church,  or  call,  or  ministry, 
or  sacraments,  or  salvation  in  the  world,  where  there  are 
no  episcopal  ordinations,  although  there  should  be  the  true 
faith,  the  true  doctrine,  and  piety  there  ;  and  which  would 
that  ALL  RELIGION  should  depend  on  a  formality,  and 
even  on  a  formality  that  we  have  shown  to  be  of  no 
other  than  humane  institution ;  that  opinion,  I  say,  cannot 
be  lookt  on  otherwise  then  as  the  very  worst  character 
and  mark  of  the  highest  hypocricy,  a  piece  of  Pharisaism 
throughout,  that  strains  at  a  gnat  when  it  swallows  a  camel, 
and  I  cannot  avoid  having  at  least  a  contempt  of  those 
kind  of  thoughts,  and  a  compassion  for  those  who  fill  their 
heads  with  them."t 
*  Pt.  ii,  p.  421,  fol.  Genev.,  1634.      t  Pt.  iv,  p.  97,  4to.  Lond.,  1683. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  21 

SECTION  11. 

THE   STATE   OF   THE   GENERAL   QUESTION. 

Having  exhibited  a  general  view  of  the  doctrine  of  suc- 
cession as  taught  by  these  high  Churchmen,  it  may  now 
be  proper  to  clear  our  way  by  giving  the  true  state  of  the 
question. 

The  succession  divines  maintain, — 

1.  That  bishops  are,  by  divine  right,  an  order 
superior  to,  distinct  from,  and  having  powers,  authority, 
and  rights  incompatible  with  presbyters,  simply  as  pres- 
byters : 

2.  That  the  bishops  of  this  order  are  the  sole  success- 
ors of  the  apostles  as  ordainers  of  other  ministers,  and 
governors  both  of  pastors  and  people  : 

3.  That  this  succession  is  a  personal  succession,  viz. 
— that  it  is  to  be  traced  through  an  historical  series  of 
persons,  validly  ordained  as  bishops,  transmitting,  in  an 
unbroken  line,  this  episcopal  order  and  power  to  the  latest 
generations : 

4.  That  no  ministry  is  valid,  except  it  have  this  epis- 
copal ordination ;  and  that  all  ordinances  and  sacraments 
are  vain,  except  they  be  administered  by  such  episcopally 
ordained  ministers. 

Now  we  deny  every  one  of  these  positions.  And  we 
shall  show, — 

1.  That  bishops  and  presbyters  are,  by  divine  right,  the 
same  order  ;  and  that  presbyters,  by  divine  right,  have 
the  same  power  and  authority  as  bishops ;  that  ordina- 
tion by  presbyters  is  equally  valid  with  that  of  bishops  ; 
and,  consequently,  that  the  ministry  of  all  the  reformed 
Protestant  churches  is  equally  valid  with  that  of  any  epis- 
copal church  : 

2.  That  presbyters  are  as  much  the  successors  of  the 
apostles  as  bishops  are  : 

3.  That  a  succession  of  the  truth  of  doctrine,  o^  faith 
and  holiness,  of  the  pure  word  of  God,  and  of  the  sacraments 
duly  administered,  is  the  only  essential  succession  ne- 
cessary to  a  Christian  church : 


22         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

4.  That  all  are  true  Christian  churches  where  such 
a  ministry  and  such  ordinances  are  found. 

Here  it  should  be  well  observed,  that  the  distinguishing 
character  of  the  scheme  we  oppose,  is  its  unchristian  ex- 
clusiveness  and  intolerance.  If  its  advocates  had  contended 
only  for  the  lawfulness  or  aUowableness  of  an  ecclesiastical 
arrangement  for  a  class  of  ministers  whom  they  choose 
to  call  bishops,  without  excluding  the  presbyters  of  other 
churches  from  their  Scriptural  power  and  authority  to  per- 
form all  the  duties  necessary  for  the  being  and  well  being 
of  the  Christian  church,  this  might  have  passed  :  but  this 
does  not  satisfy  them.  Nothing  will  answer  their  design, 
but  the  degrading  of  the  presbyters  of  those  churches,  and 
all  presbyters,  to  an  incapacity  for  performing  those  duties 
which  God  has  committed  unto  them,  and  the  setting  up 
of  an  order  of  bishops,  by  divine  right,  with  the  sole  and 
exclusive  powers  of  ordaining  ministers,  and  of  governing 
them  and  the  church  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Again,  if 
these  writers  had  contended  simply  for  the  importance  of  a 
succession  of  pious  ministers,  in  a  settled  state  of  things,  in 
any  church,  as  a  great  blessing  to  that  church,  and  an  en- 
couragement to  the  faith  of  its  members,  without  making 
an  unbroken  line  of  succession  absolutely  essentl^l  in 
all  states  to  the  very  being  of  a  church,  they  would  have 
acted  commendably  ;  and  not  a  word  of  disapprobation  of 
such  a  succession  is  found  in  this  Essay.  But  this  would 
have  allowed,  with  the  early  Christian  fathers,  that  the 
succession  of  apostolical  faith  and  doctrine  is  the  only 
essential  succession  :  this,  however,  is  too  liberal  for  our 
high  Churchmen ;  it  would  not  answer  their  intolerant 
purposes.  Bishop  Taylor,  the  Oxford  Tract-men,  &c., 
solemnly  maintain,  that  without  an  unbroken  line  of  such 
bishops  as  their  scheme  maintains,  and  their  ordinations 
from  the  apostles,  there  is  no  ministry,  no  promise  of 
Christ,  no  blessings  in  any  of  the  ordinances  of  religion ;  and 
that,  consequently,  the  Scotch  church,  the  Lutheran  church, 
and  all  the  Protestant  churches  in  the  world,  are  consigned, 
like  heathens,  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God ! 

As  an  epilogue  to  this  drama,  these  writers,  after  this 
excommunication,  sometimes  affect  to  feel  a  little  charity 
for  the  excommunicated,  and  say,  "  We  do  not  hurt  them 
— the  Church  doors  are  open — they  can  come  in  if  they 


ON. APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         23 

please — they  shut  themselves  out,  &c."  Just  so  says  Po- 
pery :  "  We  are  the  church,"  say  they, — "  its  doors  are 
open."  And  they  will  "  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte,  and  when  he  is  made,  they  make  him  twofold 
more  the  child  of  hell  than  themselves."*  But  if  a  person 
does  not  see  reason  for  the  dominion  of  his  holiness  of 
Rome,  for  denying  the  evidence  of  his  senses  in  their  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation,  &c.,  then  they  consign  his  soul 
to  perdition,  and  his  body  to  the  secular  arm  to  be  burned. 
If  you  say,  "  This  is  cruel,"  it  is  replied,  "  O  !  no  :  we  pity 
him — we  do  not  hurt  him — the  church  doors  are  open 
—he  may  come  in  if  he  pleases — yea,  we  entreat  him 
to  come  in — he  shuts  himself  out — his  blood  must  be  upon 
his  own  head."  The  reader  must  determine  whether  or 
not  this  charity  is  from  above. 

We  repeat,  then,  that  in  perusing  this  or  any  other  work 
on  the  subject,  the  reader  must  never  forget  that  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  fact  of  some  kind  of  an  order  of  bishops 
having  existed  in  the  church  from  an  early  period,  and  of 
ihefact  of  an  unbroken  line  from  the  same  period,  would 
not  establish  the  system  of  these  men.  It  might  be 
allowed  that  both  are  important  to  the  well  being  of  a 
church  ;  and  yet  it  would  not  follow  that  they  are  necessary 
to  the  being  of  that  church.  No  proof  will  do  for  the 
above  scheme,  but  the  proof  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has 
ABSOLUTELY  determined  that  no  ministers  but  such  bishops 
as  they  feign  shall  convey  this  succession  ;  and  that  with- 
out this  unbroken  line  of  such  bishops,  and  their  ordina- 
tions from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  he  will  give  no  blessing 
to  the  ministry  or  ordinances  of  any  church  under  heaven, 
to  the  end  of  the  world.  No  proof  but  this  will  suffice  to 
the  establishing  of  their  monstrous  scheme.  If  its  advo- 
cates would  act  candidly  and  fairly,  they  should  set  them- 
selves to  produce  this  proof,  or  give  up  their  cause.  If 
the  reader  keeps  this,  the  true  state  of  the  question,  dis- 
tinctly before  his  mind,  their  endless  assertions  and  soph- 
isms will  be  powerless  ;  if  he  does  not,  he  will,  of  course, 
be  mystified  and  misled. 

But  though  we  thus  state  the  subject,  that  the  establish- 
ment of  the  fact  of  so7ne  kind  of  an  order  of  bishops  from 
an  early  period  in  the  church,  and  the  fact  of  an  unbroken 
*  Matt,  xxiii,    15. 


24        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION, 

line  from  the  same  period,  woiild  not  support  their  scheme ; 
yet,  as  to  such  an  order  of  bishops  as  they  contend  for,  and 
as  to  such  an  unbroken  line  of  succession  as  they  boast  of, 
we  DENY  the  FACT  OF  EOT?.  God  never  instituted  the 
first ;  and  the  last  does  not  exist.  All  this  will  be  cleary 
shown  in  the  sequel. 

This  being  the  state  of  the  question,  the  proof  of  their 
own  propositions  lies  upon  the  succession  divines.  Their 
proofs  must  be  Scriptural,  clear,  and  strong.  This  is  evi- 
dent from  the  interests  of  both  parties.  The  interests  of 
the  succession  divines  and  their  followers  require  such 
proofs.  They  venture  to  suspend  the  validity  of  their  own 
ministry  and  ordinances,  and  the  whole  Christianity  of  all 
their  people,  upon  this  doctrine  :  what  wretched  apprehen- 
sions, then,  must  they  have,  except  their  proof  be  Scrip- 
tural, clear,  and  strong.  The  interests  of  other  Christian 
churches  require  this.  The  result  of  this  doctrine,  they 
are  aware,  is  to  excommunicate  all  the  other  Protestant 
churches  in  Europe.  He  that  attempts  this,  should  show 
cause  why  he  does  it.  His  own  character  requires  this  : 
this  also  is  necessary  for  the  conviction  and  conversion  of 
the  offenders,  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  public  mind. 
Bishop  Taylor,  and  some  others,  have  attempted  it ;  we 
shall  examine  their  attempts.  Dr.  Hook,  indeed,  is  un- 
warrantably arrogant  and  insolent  upon  the  subject.  He 
says,  among  other  arrogant  things,  in  his  "  Two  Sermons 
on  the  Church  and  the  Establishment,"  "  It  is  very  seldom 
that  the  clergyman  of  the  parish  feels  it  to  be  worth  his 
while  to  enter  into  controversy  with  the  Dissenting  teacher. 
He  knows  his  superiority^  and  that  he  has  nothing  to  gain 
by  the  contest."  Now  this  is  not  so  meek, — first  to  ex- 
communicate you,  and  then  to  insult  you  for  asking  the 
reason  for  this  sentence.  "  He  knows  his  superiority,  and 
that  he  has  nothing  to  gain  by  the  contest."  Indeed' 
what,  no  justification  for  this  tremendous  sentence  ?  What, 
then,  has  he  something  to  lose  here  ?  Truth  always 
gains  :  error  and  evil  deeds  only  lose  by  the  light.  Dr. 
Hook  may  possibly  find  he  has  something  to  lose,  if  he 
has  nothing  to  gain.  It  is  a  common  trick  with  the  Pa- 
pists to  be  the  most  confident  where  they  have  least  proof. 
They  know  many  of  their  deluded  followers  will  exercise 
an  implicit  faith  in  their  assertions.     This  will  do — rea- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         25 

soning  would  possibly  lead  many  to  doubt — perhaps  to  do 
more.  It  is  wise  in  such  a  cause  to  avoid  it,  and  to  treat 
your  adversary  with  scorn.  Why  not  ?  you  have  "  nothing 
to  gaivb''  by  the  controversy.  Dr.  Hook,  however,  has 
favoured  us  with  the  outline  of  his  scheme  and  argumenta- 
tion.    These  we  shall  notice  in  their  place. 

Now  though  the  proof,  as  we  have  said,  lies  upon  these 
assertors  of  this  personal  succession  scheme  ;  and  though 
no  man  ought  to  be  required  to  -prove  a  negative;  yet  as 
they  are  shy  of  their  proofs,  and  in  their  stead  give  the 
world  their  important  ipse  dixits ;  and  as  their  bold  asser- 
tions may  trouble  many,  an  exposure  of  the  baselessness 
and  futility  of  these  assertions  may  be  useful.  Let  the 
reader  remember,  that  if  we  can  only  show  that  a  reasona- 
ble "  douhf  lies  upon  any  part  of  this  scheme,  that  doubt 
will  be  fatal  to  it.  If  we  show  more  ;  if  we  show  every 
PROPOSITION  to  be  DOUBTFUL ; — yea,  more  still,  every 
proposition  to  be  baseless  and  false  ;  then  the  whole 
fabric  falls  to  the  srround. 


SECTION  III. 

NO  POSITIVE  PROOF  FROM  THE  SCRIPTURES  OF  THESE   HIGH 
CHURCH  CLAIMS. 

We  will  proceed  to  examine  the  Scriptural  proofs  ad- 
duced in  favour  of  these  high  Church  claims.  Bishop 
Taylor  has  granted,  (what  every  Protestant  ought  to  insist 
upon,)  that,  except  they  have  clear.  Scriptural  grounds 
for  these  claims,  the  attempt  to  impose  them  on  the  church 
of  God  would  be  tyranny.  "  Whatsoever,"  says  he,  "  was 
the  regiment  of  the  Church  in  the  apostles'*  times,  that  must 
be  perpetuall,  (not  so  as  to  have  all  that  which  was  per- 
sonall,  and  temporary,  but  so  as  to  have  no  other,)  for  that, 
and  that  only  is  of  divine  institution  which  Christ  com- 
mitted to  the  apostles,  and  if  the  Church  be  not  now  gov- 
erned as  then,  we  can  show  no  divine  authority  for  our 
government,  which  we  must  contend  to  doe,  and  doe  it, 
too,  or  be  call'd  usurpers."*  So  says  Chillingworth,  in 
his  immortal  declaration, — "  The  religion  of  the  Protest- 

*  Episcopacy  Asserted,  p.  4L 
2 


26         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ants — is  the  Bible.  The  Bible,  I  say,  the  Bible  only  is 
the  religion  of  Protestants !  Whatsoever  else  they  believe 
besides  it,  and  the  plain,  irrefragable,  indubitable  conse- 
quences of  it,  well  may  they  hold  it  as  a  matter  of  opinion  ; 
but  as  matter  of  faith  and  religion,  neither  can  they  with 
coherence  to  their  own  grounds  believe  it  themselves,  nor 
require  the  belief  of  it  of  others,  without  most  high  and 
most  schismatical  presumption T* 

I  ought  to  caution  the  reader  on  one  point  here — it  is 
this,  that  he  will  not  blame  me  if  I  do  not  bring  forward 
any  such  arguments  produced  by  these  divines,  out  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  as  their  cause  might  seem  to  demand. 
All  I  can  say  is,  that  I  know  of  no  arguments  of  this  kind  ; 
and  therefore  I  cannot  produce  them.  I  promise  him  I 
will  produce  the  best  I  have  anywhere  found  urged  by 
these  advocates  for  their  scheme.  Perhaps,  however,  in 
justice  to  some  eminent  writers  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  I 
should  say,  that  they  substantially  give  up  direct  Scripture 
proof,  and  rely  chiejly  upon  an  induction  from  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  early  Christian  fathers.  Thus,  Dr.  Hammond 
asks,  "  Who  were  the  apostles'  successors  in  that  power 
which  concerned  the  governing  their  churches  which  they 
planted  ?  and  first,  I  answer,  that  it  being  a  matter  of  fact, 
or  story,  later  than  the  Scripture  can  universally  reach  to, 
it  cannot  be  fully  satisfied  or  answered  from  thence — but 
will  in  the  full  latitude,  through  the  universal  church  in 
these  times  be  made  clear,  from  the  recent  evidences 
that  we  have,  viz.,  from  the  consent  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
fathers,  who  generally  resolve  that  bishops  are  those  suc- 
cessors."f  The  celebrated  Henry  Dodwell  has  probably 
never  been  surpassed  in  laborious  ecclesiastical  learning, 
and  he  devoted  it  all  to  the  establishment  of  this  system  of 
exclusiveness  on  behalf  of  episcopal  powers  and  authority. 
Now  this  high  Church  champion,  after  all  his  toil  to  estab- 
lish these  claims,  fairly  gives  up  all  direct  Scriptural  au- 
thority for  them.  "  The  sacred  writers,"  says  he,  "  no- 
where professedly  explain  the  offices  or  ministries  them- 
selves, as  to  their  nature  or  extent,  which  surely  they 
would  have  done  if  any  particular  form  had  been  presented 

*  Religion  of  Protestants,  chap,  vii,  sec.  56. 
t  On  the  Power  of  the  Keys,  Preface. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         27 

for  perpetual  duration."*  And  the  very  learned  Bishop 
Beveridge  himself,  another  exclusionist,  makes  substan- 
tially the  same  acknowledgment.  He  says,  "  Nothing  can 
be  determined  from  what  the  apostles  did  in  their  early 
proceedings  in  preaching  the  gospel  as  to  the  establish- 
ment of  any  certain  form  of  church  government  for 
perpetual  duration."! 

But  let  us  proceed  to  the  attempts  made  to  find  some- 
thing in  Scripture  to  support  this  scheme. 

^  1. — The  Commission  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Apostles. 

Their  first  argument  is  taken  from  the  commission  of 
Christ  to  the  apostles  :  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  ob- 
serve all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and, 
lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen. "J  The  scheme  of  high  Churchmen  asserts  that 
this  commission  belongs  to  bishops  alone,  as  the  exclusive 
successors  of  the  apostles,  and  as  the  sole  rulers  and 
ordainers  of  all  other  ministers  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  proof  is  wanting :  though  Archbishop  Potter  tells  us, 
that  the  passage  before  us  "  contains  a  full  declaration  of 
our  Lord's  intention ^^  It  would  be  idle  to  quote  the  at- 
tempts to  supply  this  want  of  proofs  by  the  reiterated  asser- 
tions of  these  writers  on  the  subject.  The  reader  may  see 
them  in  Bishop  Taylor,  sec.  3,  Dr.  Hook's  Two  Sermons, 
&c.  The  great  reformers  of  the  English  Church  thought 
very  differently  from  these  men  ;  for  they  appointed  this 
very  commission  as  a  part  of  the  solemn  office  for  ordain- 
ing all  presbyters :  thus  most  decidedly  determining  that 
they  believed  this  commission  to  belong  to  all  presbyters, 
as  well  as  to  bishops.  There  is  not,  indeed,  a  single 
syllable  in  the  passage  about  distinct  orders  of  bishops 
and  presbyters.  The  whole  commission  plainly  belongs 
equally  to  every  minister  of  Christ,  in  every  age,  as  it  does 
to  a  bishop.  The  Lord  made  no  distinction ;  and  the  ser- 
vant that  attempts  it,  attempts  a  tyranny  over  his  brethren 

*  De  Nupero  Schismate,  sec.  14. 

t  Cod.  Can.  Ecc.  Prim.  Vind.,  p.  317.    Lond.,  1678,  4to. 

X  Matt,  xxviii,  19,  20.      (^  Church  Govern.,  p.  121,  ed.  Bagster,  1838. 


28        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

for  which  he  has  no  divine  warrant.  To  see  that  our 
Lord  intended  no  such  thing  as  this  proud  scheme,  let  us 
hear  him  in  other  places  on  the  relation  of  ministers,  one 
to  another.  "  But  be  not  ye  called  rahhi :  for  one  is  your 
Master,  even  Christ ;  and  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call 
no  man  your  father  upon  the  earth  :  for  one  is  your  Father, 
which  is  in  heaven.  Neither  be  ye  called  masters  :  for 
one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ.  But  he  that  is  greatest 
among  you  shall  be  your  servant.  And  whosoever  shall 
exalt  himself  shall  be  abased ;  and  he  that  shall  humble 
himself  shall  be  exalted."*  "  But  Jesus  called  them  to 
him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye  know  that  they  which  are 
accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  exercise  lordship 
over  them ;  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority  upon 
them.  But  so  shall  it  not  be  among  you :  but  whosoever 
will  be  great  among  you,  shall  be  your  minister :  and 
whosoever  of  you  will  be  the  chiefest,  shall  be  servant  of 
all.  For  even  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many."t  The  only  just  conclusions  that  can  be  drawn 
from  these  passages  are,  that  all  ministers  of  the  gospel 
are  equal  by  divine  authority  ;  and  that  the  only  important 
distinctions  before  God  will  be  those  of  deeper  piety,  more 
devoted  labours,  and  greater  usefulness  to  the  church  of  God. 
"  Whosoever  will  be  the  chiefest,  shall  be  servant  of  all." 
Great  dependance  is  placed  by  others  upon  our  Saviour's 
words  on  John  xx,  21-23,  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  them  again. 
Peace  be  unto  you :  as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so 
send  I  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost : 
whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  : 
and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained^  Now 
this  is  just  as  inconclusive  as  the  other ;  nay,  the  very 
indefiniteness  of  the  Saviour's  language,  in  both  passages, 
is  against  them  ;  for,  had  he  meant  what  they  would  have 
him  to  mean,  he  would,  in  a  matter,  according  to  this 
scheme,  so  all-important,  have  said  so ;  but  he  did  not  say 
so,  which  proves  decidedly  that  he  did  not  mean  so.  And 
here  also,  again,  it  is  unfortunate  for  these  writers,  as  be- 
longing to  the  Church  of  England,  that  her  reformers  have 
indisputably  shown,  that,  in  their  views,  this  whole  pas- 
*  Matt,  xxiii,  8-13.  t  Mark  x,  42-45. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         29 

sage,  whatever  power  and  authority  it  conveys,  belongs 
PROPERLY  to  presbyters,  as  well  as  to  bishops,  by  applying 
the  whole  to  presbyters  in  the  solemn  act  of  ^AeiV  ordination 
to  the  ministry.  We  speak  of  the  Book  of  Orders,  or  the 
Office  for  ordaining  Priests  (presbyters)  and  Bishops,  as 
it  was  constituted  by  the  great  English  reformers ;  and  as 
it  continued  till  1661,  when  it  was  altered  to  what  it  is  at 
present.     See  section  vii,  of  this  Essay. 

§  2. — The  Claim  of  Apostleship  for  Bishops. 

But  it  is  said,  and  contended  for,  that  bishops  are  now 
what  the  apostles  were  in  their  time.  To  be  sure  some 
things  are  excepted,  as  the  pretence  would  otherwise  im- 
mediately refute  itself.  Let  us  hear  Bishop  Taylor  :  "  In 
the  extraordinary  priviledges  of  the  apostles  they  had  no 
successors,  therefore  of  necessity  a  successor  must  be 
constituted  in  the  ordinary  office  of  apostolate.  Now 
what  is  this  ordinary  office  ?  Most  certainly  since  the 
extraordinary  (as  is  evident)  was  only  a  helpe  for  the 
founding  and  beginning,  the  other  are  such  as  are  neces- 
sary for  the  perpetuating  of  a  church.  Now  in  clear  evi- 
dence of  sense,  these  offices  and  powers  are  preaching, 
baptizing^  consecrating,  ordaining,  and  governing.  For 
these  were  necessary  for  the  perpetuating  of  a  church, 
unless  men  could  be  Christians  that  were  never  chris- 
tened, nourished  up  to  life  without  the  eucharist,  become 
priests  without  calling  of  God  and  ordination,  have  their 
sinnes  pardoned  without  absolution,  be  members  and  parts 
and  sonnes  of  a  church  whereof  there  is  no  coadunation, 
no  authority,  no  governour.  These  the  apostles  had  with- 
out all  question,  and  whatsoever  they  had,  they  had  from 
Christ,  and  these  were  eternally  necessary:  these,  then, 
were  the  offices  of  the  apostolate,  which  Christ  promised 
to  assist  for  ever,  and  this  is  that  which  we  now  call  the 
order  and  ojffice  of  episcopacy.  The  apostolate  and  epis- 
copacy which  did  communicate  in  all  the  power,  and  offices 
which  were  ordinary  and  perpetuall,  are  in  Scripture 
clearely  all  one  in  ordinary  ministration,  and  their  names 
are  often  used  in  common  to  signify  exactly  the  same 
ordinary  function."*  ''  LnpositiGii  of  hands  is  a  duty  and 
*  Pages  14,  15. 


30         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

office  necessary  for  the  perpetuating  of  a  church,  ne  gens 
sit  vnius  cBtatis,  least  it  expire  in  one  age  :  this  power  of 
imposition  of  hands  for  ordination  was  fix't  upon  the  apos- 
tles and  apostolike  men,  and  not  communicated  to  the  72 
disciples  or  presbyters ;  for  the  apostles,  and  apostolike 
men,  did  so  de  facto,  and  were  commanded  to  doe  so,  and 
the  72  never  did  so,  therefore  this  office  and  ministry  of 
the  apostolate  is  distinct  and  superior  to  that  oi  presbyters, 
and  this  distinction  must  be  so  continued  to  all  ages  of  the 
church,  for  the  thing  was  not  temporary  but  productive  of 
issue  and  succession,  and  therefore  as  perpetuall  as  the 
clergy,  as  the  Church  itself."* 

"For  farther  confirmation,"  says  Bingham,  "of  what 
has  been  asserted,  it  will  not  be  amiss  here  to  subjoin 
next  a  short  account  of  the  titles  of  honour  which  were 
given  to  bishops  in  the  primitive  church.  The  most  an- 
cient of  these  is  the  title  of  apostles ;  which,  in  a  large 
and  secondary  sense,  is  thought  by  many  to  have  been  the 
original  name  for  bishops,  before  the  name  bishop  was  ap- 
propriated to  their  order.  For  at  first  they  suppose  the 
names  bishop  and  presbyter  to  have  been  common  names 
for  all  of  the  first  and  second  order ;  during  which  time, 
the  appropriate  name  for  bishops,  to  distinguish  them  from 
mere  presbyters,  was  that  of  apostles.  Thus  Theodoret 
says  expressly,  '  The  same  persons  were  anciently  called 
promiscuously  both  bishops  and  presbyters,  while  those 
who  are  now  called  bishops,  were^  (then)  '  called  apostles. 
But  shortly  after,  the  name  of  apostles  was  appropriated 
to  such  only  as  were  apostles  indeed  ;  and  then  the  name 
bishop  was  given  to  those  who  before  were  called  apostles.' 
Thus,  he  says,  Epaphroditus  was  the  apostle  of  the  Phi- 
lippians,  and  Titus  the  apostle  of  the  Cretans,  and  Timothy 
the  apostle  of  the  Asiaticks.  And  this  he  repeats  in  seve- 
ral other  places  of  his  writings." 

"  The  author  under  the  name  of  St.  Ambrose  asserts 
the  same  thing ;  '  That  all  bishops  were  called  apostles  at 
first.'  And  therefore,  he  says,  that  '  St.  Paul,  to  distin- 
guish himself  from  such  apostles,  calls  himself  an  apostle, 
not  of  man,  nor  sent  by  man  to  preach,  as  those  others 
were,  who  were  chosen  and  sent  by  the  apostles  to  con- 
firm the  churches.'  Amalarius  cites  another  passage  out 
*  Pase  27. 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         31 

of  this  same  author,  which  speaks  more  fully  to  the  pur- 
pose :  *  They,'  says  he,  '  who  are  now  called  bishops, 
were  originally  called  apostles  :  but  the  holy  apostles  being 
DEAD,  they  who  were  ordained  after  them  to  govern  the 
churches,  could  not  arrive  to  the  excellency  of  those  first ; 
nor  had  they  the  testimony  of  miracles,  but  were  in  many 
respects  inferior  to  them  ;  therefore  they  thought  it  not 
DECENT  to  assume  to  themselves  the  name  of  apostles  ; 
but,  dividing  the  names,  they  left  to  presbyters  the  name 
of  the  presbytery,  and  they  themselves  were  called 
bishops.' " 

"  This  is  what  those  authors  infer  from  the  identity  of 
the  names,  bishop  and  presbyter,  in  the  first  age :  they  do 
not  thence  argue  (as  some  who  abuse  their  authority  have 
done  since)  that  therefore  bishops  and  presbyters  were  all 
one  ;  but  they  think  that  bishops  w^ere  then  distinguished 
by  a  more  appropriate  name,  and  more  expressive  of  their 
superiority,  which  was  that  of  secondary  apostles."* 

So  Dr.  Hook : — "  The  officer  whom  v/e  now  call  a 
bishop  was  at  first  called  an  apostle,  although  afterward  it 
was  thought  better  to  confine  the  title  of  apostle  to  those 
who  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus,  while  their  successors, 
exercising  the  same  rights  and  authority,  though  unen- 
dowed with  miraculous  powers,  contented  themselves  with 
the  designation  of  bishops."! 

The  importance  of  these  extracts  must  apologize  for 
their  length.  Powerful  efforts  are  sometimes  made  to 
hold  up  this  system  by  claiming  authority  for  it  from  the 
precedents  of  Scriptural  bishops.  This,  however,  its 
ablest  advocates  seem  to  be  conscious  is  untenable  ground. 
They  find  something  more  indefinite  about  the  office  of 
apostles.  This  makes  it  more  easy  to  indulge  in  supposi- 
tions and  assertions.  Besides,  the  scheme  is  an  imposing 
one :  sole,  exclusive  successors  of  the  apostles  !  What 
may  they  not  do,  if  they  can  establish  this  ?  The  world 
must  bow  to  their  awful  authority.  The  pope  has  showni 
us  what  may  be  accomplished  in  subjugating  the  bodies, 
and  souls,  and  substance  of  mankind,  by  one  such  suc- 
cessor :  what  would  be  the  state  of  the  world,  then,  were 
every  bishop  established  as  a  pope  in  his  diocess  ?     To 

*  Page  21,  vol.  i,  fol.    Lond.,  1728. 

t  Two  Sermons  on  the  Church  and  the  Establishment. 


32        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

say  this  is  all  exaggeration,  is  to  contradict  all  past  history 
and  experience. 

The  nature  of  the  subject,  the  boldness  of  these  claims, 
and  the  confidence  with  which  they  are  urged,  demand  a 
careful  investigation  of  this  apostleship  of  bishops.  But 
before  we  enter  upon  that  investigation,  it  will  not  be  irre- 
levant to  notice,  how  these  and  similar  advocates  of  this 
high  scheme  of  episcopacy  disagree  with  each  other. 

Bishop  Taylor  declares  that,  if  this  high  Church  scheme 
be  not  the  same  as  was  in  the  apostles'  times,  and  if  they 
"  cannot  show  divine  authority  for  it,  they  must  be  called 
usurpers.^'*  But  the  famous  Henry  Dodwell,  one  of  its 
most  learned  and  strenuous  advocates,  affirms,  "  That  all 
the  reasoning  from  which  men  conclude  that  the  whole 
model  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  may  be  extracted  from 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  is  veri/  precarious. 
There  is,"  says  he,  "  ?io  passage  of  any  sacred  writer  which 
openly  professes  this  design.  Indeed  there  is  not  one 
which  so  treats  of  ecclesiastical  government,  as  if  the 
author,  or  the  writer's  author,  the  Holy  Spirit,  had  in- 
tended to  describe  any  one  form  of  church  government  as 
being  to  remain  everywhere  as  for  ever  inviolate.  The 
sacred  pen?ne?i  have  nowhere  declared,  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness, how  great  a  change  must  take  place  in  church  go- 
vernment when  the  churches  should  first  withdraw  from 
the  communion  of  the  synagogues.  They  nowhere  clearly 
show  how  much  was  allowed  to  the  personal  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  how  much  to  places  and  ojfices.  They 
nowhere,  with  decided  clearness,  distinguish  the  extraordi- 
nary officers,  who  were  not  to  outlive  that  age,  from  the 
ordinary  ministers  who  were  not  to  cease  till  the  second 
coming  of  Christ.  Indeed,  all  things  of  this  nature  were 
then  so  generally  known,  and  they  so  suppose  this  know- 
ledge in  what  they  say,  that  they  never  for  the  sake  of 
posterity  explain  them ;  concerning  themselves  only  with 
present  things,  and  leaving  the  future.  They  nowhere  pro- 
fessedly explain  the  offices  or  ministries  themselves,  as  to 
their  nature  or  extent ;  which  surely  they  would  have  done 
if  any  particular  form  had  been  prescribed  for  perpetual 
duration."! 

The  learned  Dr.  Bentley  declares,  that  "  our  bishops, 
*  Episcopacy  Asserted,  p.  4L         t  De  Nupero  Schismate,  sec.  14. 


ON  APOSTOLICA.L  SLCCESSION.         33 

with  all  Christian  antiquity,  never  thought  themselves  and 
their  order  to  succeed  the  Scripture  'Et: lokotcoi,  (bishops,) 
but  the  Scripture  Apo^oAoi,  (apostles:)  they  were  diado- 
Xoi  TG)v  Atto^oAwv,  the  successors  of  the  apostles. — The 
presbyters,  therefore,  while  the  apostles  lived,  were 
EiTWKOTToi,  bishops,  overseers."*  Yet  Dodwell,  superior 
to  Bentley  in  ecclesiastical  learning,  positively  affirms, 
that  "  the  office  of  the  apostles  perished  with  the  apostles; 
in  which  office  there  never  was  any  succession  to  any  of 
them,  EXCEPT  to  Judas  the  traitor."! 

Let  the  reader  also  remark,  here,  that  the  scheme  of  the 
apostieship  of  modern  bishops  fully  concedes  the  point,  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  were,  in  the  apostles'  days,  one  and 
the  SAME  order.  For  these  advocates  never  reckon  more 
than  three  orders  in  the  ministiy,  namely,  (1.)  bishops, 
whose  appropriate  name,  they  say,  is  apostles  ;  (2.)  priests 
or  presbyters  ;  and  (3.)  deacons.  Now  were  we  to  reckon 
Scriptural  bishops  and  presbyters  as  distinct  orders,  this 
would  make,  for  the  apostles'  dsiys,  four  orders  :  and  would 
contradict  their  own  enumeration  of  orders.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  their  plan  of  apostieship  fully  concedes  that 
Scriptural  bishops  and  presbyters  not  only  had  these  names 
in  common,  so  that  presbyters  were  called  bishops,  and 
bishops  were  called  presbyters  indifferently,  but  that  they 
ivere  realli/  one  and  the  same  order.  Accordingly,  Dr, 
Hammond  says,  that  presbyters,  as  mentioned  in  Acts  xi, 
30,  were  bishops ;  also  in  Acts  xiv,  23,  and  other  places. 
And  he  says  that  the  word  presbyter  was  ^'' fitly  made  use 
of  by  the  apostles  and  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
affixed  to  the  governors  of  the  Christian  church."—"  And 
although  this  title  of  presbyter  have  been  also  extended  to 
a  second  order  in  the  church,  and  is  now  only  in  use  for 
them,  under  the  name  of  presbyter,  yet  in  the  Scripture 
times,  it  belonged  principally,  if  not  alone,  to  bishops, 
there  being  no  evidence  that  any  of  that  second  order  were 
then  instituted."  In  plain  English,  the  doctor  fairly  grants 
that  presbyters,  in  Scripture  times,  were  bishops,  and  bishops 
were  presbyters  :  that  is,  they  were  one  and  the  saine  order 
and  office.  And  Bentley  affirms  that  "  presbyters,  while 
the  apostles  lived,  were  bishops." 

*  Rundolph's  Enchir.  Thcol.,  vol.  v,  p.  204. 

t  De  Nupero  Schi.smatc,  pp.  .5.5,  68,  ed.  Lond,,  1704,  12mo. 

2* 


34         ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

We  proceed,  however,  to  investigate  further  these  claims 
of  the  rights  and  authority  of  apostles  for  modera  bishops. 
Let  us  consider  ichom  it  is  said  they  succeed,  and  to  what 
they  succeed.  The  claim  amounts  to  this,  that  modern 
apostles,  by  voluntary  humility  called  bishops,  are  the 
exclusive  successors  of  the  twelve  apostles  ;  that  they  suc- 
ceed them  in  those  rights  and  in  that  authority  which  no 
other  order  of  ministers  possessed :  and  that  this  inherit- 
ance is  indivisible,  that  is,  that  it  cannot  belong  to  tivo 
different  orders  of  men  at  the  same  time ;  yea,  that  it  is 
itself  the  very  essence  of  the  order  of  modern  apostles  ;  so 
that  no  individual  could  possess  it  but  he  would,  hy  the 
very  fact  of  this  possession,  immediately  become  an  apostle 
himself. 

To  establish  their  scheme,  these  advocates  must  show 
two  things  :  1  st,  that  the  order  of  the  twelve  apostles  was 
to  be  an  ordinary,  standing  order  in  the  church ;  and  2dly, 
they  must  show  divine  law,  positive  divine  law,  for  the 
exclusive  succession  of  modern  bishops  to  the  rights  and 
authority  of  these  apostles.  For  if  the  order  of  the  twelve 
apostles  was  extraordinary  and  temporary,  the  claim  to 
succeed  them  in  that  which  had  no  continuance  beyond 
themselves  is  a  vain  presumption :  and  if  there  be  no 
divine  law  for  giving  to  bishops  the  exclusive  rights  and 
authority  of  the  twelve,  then  the  assumption  of  such  rights 
and  authority,  without  divine  law,  is  an  impious  assump- 
tion, and  an  attempt  at  an  intolerable  usurpation  in  the 
church  of  Christ. 

This  being  the  state  of  the  question,  on  this  point,  we 
come  to  inquire  into  the  proofs. 

The  proofs  produced  are  of  two  kinds  :  first.  Scriptural; 
secondly,  ecclesiasticcd.  As  this  is  a  question  of  divine 
right,  Scriptural  authority  alone  can  decide  it.  Ecclesias- 
tical or  human  authority,  as  authority,  is  impertinent,  and 
can  decide  nothing  one  way  or  another.  However,  we 
shall  examine  it  in  its  place. 

First,  then,  the  Scriptural  proofs.  The  claims  being  so 
high  and  awful,  the  proofs  must  be  clear,  plain,  and  power- 
ful. Dr.  Barrow's  remarks  on  the  matter  of  proofs  as  to 
the  pope's  supremacy  will  hold  Avith  equal  force  as  to  the 
supremacy  of  bishops.  We  shall  insert  them,  with  w^ords 
in  brackets,   showing  their   application   to   this    system. 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         35 

"  If,"  says  he,  "  God  had  designed  the  bishop  of  Rome 
[bishops  as  supreme  over  ministers  and  people]  to  be  for  a 
perpetual  course  of  times  sovereign  monarch  \monarchs'\ 
of  his  church,  it  may  reasonably  be  supposed  that  he  would 
expressly  have  declared  his  mind  in  the  case,  it  being  a 
point  of  greatest  importance  of  all  that  concern  the  admi- 
nistration of  his  kingdom  in  the  world.  Princes  do  not 
use  to  send  their  viceroys  unfurnished  with  patents  clearly 
signifying  their  commission,  that  no  man  out  of  ignorance 
or  doubts  concerning  that  point,  excusably  may  refuse 
compliance  ;  and,  in  all  equity,  promulgation  is  requisite 
to  the  establishment  of  any  law,  or  exacting  obedience. 
But  in  all  the  pandects  of  divine  revelation,  the  bishop  of 
Rome  [or,  the  supremacy  of  bishops,']  is  not  so  much  as 
oxcE  mentioned,  either  by  name,  or  by  character,  or  by 
probable  intimation  ;  they  cannot  hook  him  [themi]  in  other- 
wise than  by  straining  hard,  and  framing  a  long  chain  of 
consequences,  each  of  which  is  too  subtle  for  to  constrain 
any  man's  persuasion. — In  the  Levitical  law  all  things 
concerning  the  high  priest ;  not  only  his  designation,  suc- 
cession, consecration,  duly,  power,  maintenance,  privilege 
of  its  high  priest,  [of  bishops  as  high  priests,]  whereby  he 
[they]  might  be  directed  in  the  administration  of  his  [their] 
office,  [of  their  supremacy,]  and  know  what  observance  to 
require.  Whereas  also  the  Scripture  doth  inculcate  duties 
of  all  sorts,  and  doth  not  forget  frequently  to  press  duties 
of  respect  and  obedience  toward  particular  governors  of 
the  church ;  is  it  not  strange  that  it  should  never  bestow 
one  precept,  whereby  we  might  be  instructed  and  admo- 
nished to  pay  our  duty  to  the  universal  Pastor  ?  [to  these 
supreme  pastors?]  especially  considerinor,  that  God,  who 
directed  the  pens  of  the  apostles,  and  who  intended  that 
their  writings  should  continue  for  the  perpetual  instruction 
of  Christians,  did  foresee  how  requisite  such  a  precept 
would  be  to  secure  that  duty ;  for  if  but  one  such  precept 
did  appear,  it  would  do  the  business,  and  void  all  contesta- 
tion about  it."*  Thus  also  speaks  the  learned  Stillingfleet 
in  his  celebrated  Irenicum  :  "  We  shall  dissuss  the  nature 
of  a  DIVINE  RIGHT,  and  show  whereon  an  unalterable 
divine  right  must  be   founded."     Yery  well :    now  high 

*  Dr.  Barrow's  Treatise  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  Supp.  5,  p.  155, 
&c.,  ed.  Lond.,  1680,  4to. 


36         ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Churchmen  say  that  modern  bishops  have  divine  right  to 
"  the  rights  and  authority  of  apostles."  Let  Stillingfleet 
state  the  law  of  the  case.*  "  Jus  (law)  is  that  which  makes 
a  thing  to  become  a  duty  :  so  jus  quasi  jussum,  and  jussa 
jura,  as  Festus  explains  it ;  that  is,  that  whereby  a  thing 
is  not  only  licitum  (lawful)  in  men's  lawful  power  to  do  it 
or  no,  but  is  made  dehitujn,  (duty,)  and  is  constituted  a  duty 
by  the  force  and  virtue  of  a  divine  command. — Whatso- 
ever binds  Christians  as  an  universal  standing  law,  must 
be  clearly  revealed  as  such,  and  laid  down  in  Scripture  in 
such  EVIDENT  TERMS,  as  all  who  have  their  senses  exer- 
cised therein  may  discern  to  have  been  the  will  of  Christ, 
that  it  should  perpetually  oblige  all  believers  to  the 
world's  end,  as  is  clear  in  the  case  of  baptism,  and  the 
Lord's  supper."  Let,  then,  such  a  law,  such  "  a  divine 
command,  an  universal  standing  law,  clearly  revealed  as 
such,  and  laid  down  in  Scripture  in  such  evident  terms,  as 
all  who  have  their  senses  exercised  therein  may  discern 
to  have  been  the  will  of  Christ,  that  it  should  perpetually 
oblige  all  believers  to  the  world's  end" — let  such  a  law  be 
shown  for  the  claim  of  the  rights  and  authority  of  apostles 
as  belonging  to  modern  bishops,  and  the  question  is  ended. 
We  all  cordially  submit  to,  and  acquiesce  in,  such  a  divine 
law.  But,  if  no  such  law  be  produced ;  if  no  such  law 
can  be  produced ;  if  no  such  law  ever  was  promulgated ; 
then,  to  urge  such  a  claim  upon  the  consciences  of  all 
other  ministers  and  people,  and,  on  this  baseless  assump- 
tion, to  pronounce  all  their  ordinances  void,  all  their  minis- 
ters as  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  ;  what  is  this  but  to 
curse  those  whom  Christ  has  blessed  ?  what,  but  to  intro- 
duce a  system  of  usurpation  in  the  church  of  God,  essen- 
tially destructive  of  its  peace  to  the  end  of  the  world  1 

This  for  the  nature  of  the  proofs.  But  to  proceed :  it 
will  be  proper  here,  in  order  to  avoid  ambiguity,  to  notice 
the  different  significations  of  the  term  apostle.  The 
general  meaning  of  the  term  apostle  is,  one  sent,  a  mis- 
sionary, a  messenger.  Accordingly,  when  the  Saviour  sent 
forth  the  twelve,  he  also,  saith  St.  Luke,  "  named  them 
apostles.''''  These  are  called  the  apostles,  by  way  of  emi- 
nence. Eusebius  says,  "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  called 
twelve  apostles,  whom  alone  among  the  rest  of  his  dis- 
*  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  part  i,  chap.  i. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         37 

ciples  he  denominated  Vvith  peculiar  honour,  his  apostles."* 
They  are  also  called  "  the  twelve"  in  various  parts  of  the 
New  Testament ;  the  "  apostles  of  Christ,'^  in  opposition 
to  apostles  of  men,  or  of  churches,  1  Cor.  i,  1  ;  2  Cor.  i,  1 ; 
xi,  13,  and  in  many  other  places.  The  term,  when  applied 
to  others,  is  simply  "  apostle,"  or  "  the  apostle,"  or  "  mes- 
senger of  the  churches." 

The  term  apostle  is  also  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
to  several  other  individuals  in  a  more  general,  and  less 
dignified  sense.  It  is,  in  this  sense,  applied  to  designate 
all  who  were  sent  to  preach  the  gospel ;  the  twelve  apostles, 
and  all  other  preachers.  This  is  proved  by  the  following 
passages : — Matt,  xxiii,  34,  compared  with  Luke  xi,  49. 
For  the  apostles,  as  mentioned  in  Luke,  are  explained  in 
Matthew  by  being  called  "  wise  men  and  scribes  ;"  that  is, 
all  teachers  or  preachers  of  the  gospel.  So  Dr.  Hammond 
in  Matt,  xxiii,  34,  "  Prophets  and  others  learned  in  your 
religion,  which  receiving  the  faith  (Matt,  xiii,  52)  shall 
preach  it  to  you ;"  and  therefore,  in  Luke  xi,  49,  he  trans- 
lates the  word  "  apostle"  by  the  word  "  messenger  ;"  and 
so  Treraellius  translates  the  Syriac  there.  Dr.  Whitby, 
in  Matt,  xxiii,  34,  explains  "  wise  men  and  scribes,"  by 
"  true  interpreters  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  and  in- 
stances Stephen  the  deacon  as  one  of  them.  Thus  Calvin, 
Mr.  S.  Clarke,  and  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  interpret  these  passages 
to  mean  all  preachers  of  the  gospel ;  and,  indeed,  they  do 
not  seem  capable  of  any  other  interpretation.  In  this 
sense,  several  of  the  fathers  call  the  seventy  disciples, 
sent  forth  by  our  Lord  to  preach  the  gospel,  apostles. 
Apollos,  who  was  nothing  more  than  a  lay  preacher,  is 
also  in  this  sense  called  an  "  apostle  :"  compare  1  Cor.  iv,  9 
with  v,  6  ;  so  is  Barnabas,  Acts  xiv,  14  ;  and  see  2  Cor. 
xi,  13,  vvith  V,  15  ;  Rom.  xvi,  7 ;  Rev.  ii,  2. 

The  word  apostle  seems,  also,  to  be  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  in  a  more  general  sense  still,  to  signify  any 
messenger  on  public  business,  whether  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel  or  not.  Though  we  notice  this  sense  of  the  term 
apostle  last,  yet  it  is,  in  truth,  the  most  proper  sense  of  the 
word ;  and  the  former  meanings  only  show  particular  ap- 
plications of  this  general  one.  Thus  Dr.  Hammond  on 
Luke  vi,  13:  "The  name  (apostle)  hath  no  more  in  it" 
*  Euseb.  E.  H.,  lib.  i,  cap.  10. 


38         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

than  to  "  signify  messenger  on  legate."  "  Among  the  Jews 
all  sorts  of  messengers  are  called  apostles.  So  Ahijah 
(1  Kings  xiv,  6)  is  called  aKXrjgog  ATrog-oXog,  that  is,  a 
harsh  apostle,  or  messenger  of  ill  news.  And  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  word  is  no  otherwise  used.  Among  the 
Talmudists  it  is  used  of  them  that  were,  by  the  rulers  of 
the  synagogues,  seiit  out  to  receive  the  tenths  and  dues 
that  Jbelonged  to  the  synagogues.  And,  in  like  manner, 
the  ?nesse?igers  of  the  church  that  carried  their  liberality, 
or  letters  congratulatory,  from  one  to  another,  are  by  Igna- 
tius called  ■^eodgofioi  and  ■deonpealSvrat,  the  divine  carriers, 
or  embassadors  ;  and  so  in  the  Theodosian  Codex  tit.  de 
Jud<£is,  apostoli  are  those  that  were  sent  by  the  patriarch 
at  a  set  time  to  require  the  gold  and  silver  due  to  them." 
Thus  the  persons  who  were  chosen  hy  the  churches  to  carry 
the  money  collected  in  Greece  for  the  poor  brethren  at 
Jerusalem  are  called  the  apostles  ;  that  is,  as  our  trans- 
lators justly  render  it,  "  the  messengers  of  the  churches^'' 
2  Cor.  viii,  23.  This  is  explained  by  the  apostle  Paul 
himself,  where  he  says,  in  1  Cor.  xvi,  3,  "  And  when  I 
come,  whomsoever  ye  shall  approve  by  your  letters,  them 
will  I  send  to  bring  your  liberality  to  .Jerusalem :"  as  in 
2  Cor.  viii,  19,  he  speaks  of  them  as  "  chosen  of  the  churches 
to  travel  with  us  v/ith  this  grace,"  with  this  liberal  contri- 
bution. The  reader  will  observe  that  St.  Paul  does  not 
number  Titus  with  these  apostles,  or,  more  properly,  mes- 
sengers ;  and  for  this  plain  reason,  these  messengers  were 
persons  chosen  or  ordained  hy  the  churches  to  this  business, 
— Titus  was  NOT ;  but  only  sent  in  company  with  them 
by  the  apostle  ;  they,  therefore,  were  messengers  of  the 
churches,  and  they  only,  2  Cor.  viii,  23,  "  Whether  any 
do  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my  partner  and  fellow-helper 
concerning  you :  or  our  brethren  be  inquired  of,  they  are 
the  MESSENGERS  of  tlic  churchcs,  and  the  glory  of  Christ." 
In  Phil,  ii,  25,  it  seems  to  be  used  again  to  mean  ^,  public 
messenger,  a  messenger  of  the  church,  sent  on  their 
public  business.     Bishop  Taylor  here   actually*  perverts 

*  No  man's  name  should  shield  him  when  he  perverts  the  truth. 
This  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  Bishop  Taylor  has  been  guilty 
of  perverting  the  truth  to  serve  a  system.  Quoting  the  annotation  of 
Zonaras,  p.  280,  upon  the  twelfth  canon  of  the  Laodicean  council, 
"  Populi  saffragiis  olim  episcopi  eligcbantur,"  he  translates,  ''■  of  old 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         39 

the  sense  by  a  false  translation.  He  renders  avvepyog, 
my  "  compeer,^^  in  order  to  raise  Epaphroditus,  as  a  proto- 
type of  modern  bishops,  to  equality  with  apostles.  He 
would  thus  make  Priscilla  and  Aquila  (Rom.  xvi,  3)  apos- 
tolic compeers,  rovg  owegyovg  fiov  ;  and  perhaps  Priscilla 
would  stand  as  a  prototype  for  a  race  of  female  bishops ! 
Will  he  also  make  apostles  themselves  compeers  with 
God,  because  they  were  workers  together  with  him,  Qeov 
yap  EGiiev  ovvepyoi  ?  1  Cor.  iii,  9.  The  apostle's  language, 
however,  is  distinct,  as  before  : — "  Yet  I  suppose  it  neces- 
sary to  send  to  you  Epaphroditus,  my  companion  in  labour, 
GvvEQjov  fiov,  but  YOUR  messenger,  vjxcovde  anog'oXov," 
Phil,  ii,  25.  Dodwell  has  the  candour  and  good  sense  to 
see  this.  "  If  it  were  true,"  says  he,  "  that  these  secondary 
apostles  of  the  churches  were  the  apostles  of  the  churches 
for  no  other  reason  than  'this,  that  they  were  sent  to  plant 
churches  ;  there  would  in  this  view  be  no  ground  on  which 
they  could  be  distinguished  from  the  primary  apostles  :  for 
the  apostles  of  Christ  were  sent  forth  and  appointed  by 
Christ  himself  to  this  office  of  planting  churches.  Ephes. 
iv,  11-13.     But  we  may  easily  gather  from  the  Epistle  to 

time  bishops  were  chosen  not  without  the  suffrage  of  the  people," 
instead  of  "  by  the  suffrage  of  the  people  ;"  and  this  is  done  evidently 
to  weaken  or  alter  the  sense  of  the  passage,  as  a  proof  of  the  people's 
power  formerly  in  choosing  the  bishop  "by  their  suffrages."  He  tells 
his  reader,  at  p.  55,  that  Jerome  is  dissuading  Heliodorus  from  taking 
on  him  "  the  great  burden  of  the  episcopal  office."  Now  Jerome 
commences  his  discourse  on  the  subject  by  saying,  "  Provocabis  ad 
CLEROsI" — "Do  you  now  come  to  the  clergy  1"  But  then  Jerome, 
in  the  next  line,  speaks  of  these  clergy,  without  any  distinction,  as 
"  SUCCEEDING  to  the  apostolical  degree."  Here  is  the  secret.  So 
Jerome  must  be  made  to  speak  to  Heliodorus  about  "  the  great  burden 
of  the  episcopal  office  .'"  Again,  in  the  very  same  page  :  "  Feed  the 
flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  said  St.  Peter  to  the  bishops  of 
Ponfiis,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia.  Similia  enim  suc- 
cessoribus  suis  Petrus  scripsit  praecepta,  saith  Theodoras — St.  Peter 
gave  the  same  precepts  to  his  successors  which  Christ  gave  to  him," 
p  55.  Here  he  finds  Theodoret  speaking  of  apostolical  successors  ; 
so  they  must  be  made  bishops,  though  the  sacred  text  expressly  says 
they  were  "  presbyters  !"  1  Pet.  v,  1-3.  There  is  a  very  reprehen- 
sible attempt  of  the  same  kind  upon  the  eighteenth  canon  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Ancyra,  at  p.  176.  The  Church  of  England  divines  never  spare 
the  Popish  divines  when  they  detect  them  in  such  tricks  ;  they  boldly 
charge  them  with  "  forgeries  and  corruptions  of  councils  and  fathers." 
They  do  right.  "  Thou  that  judgest  another,  thou  condemnest  thy- 
self," if  thou  doest  any  of  the  same  things. 


40         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  Philippians  to  what  the  office  of  Epaphroditus,  as  an 
apostle  or  messenger,  referred,  (chap,  iv,  18,)  '  But  I  have 
all,  and  abound  :  I  am  full,  having  received  of  Epaphrodi- 
tus the  things  lohich  were  sent  from  you,  an  odour  of  a 
sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well-pleasing  to  God.' 
His  office,  therefore,  belonged  to  pecuniary  affairs.  Rem 
igitur  pecunia,riam  spectahat  ilia  legatioP*  He  treats  this 
subject  well  to  the  end  of  the  section  ;  but  we  must  study 
brevity. 

Here,  then,  we  see  the  word  apostle,  or  apostles,  signi- 
nifies  in  the  New  Testament,  first,  "  the  twelve  apostles," 
so  designated  by  way  of  eminence,  as  distinguished  from 
all  others ;  secondly,  it  signifies,  in  a  more  general  and 
less  dignified  sense,  all  preachers  of  the  gospel;  and, 
thirdly,  it  signifies  any  public  messenger,  as  "  the  messenger 
of  the  churches,"  2  Cor.  viii,  23  ;  Phil,  ii,  23. 

Here  let  the  reader  remark  : 

First,  that  the  application  of  the  name  apostle  to  the 
bishops  of  modern  times,  in  the  second  and  third  senses, 
will  give  them  no  prerogatives  over  any  other  ministers 
of  the  gospel :  it  must,  then,  be  claimed  for  them  by  high 
Churchmen  in  the  first  sense,  as  applied  to  designate  the 
twelve  ALONE  ;  this  is  their  claim.  Let  this  be  strictly 
kept  in  mind,  as  these  advocates  often  sophistically  shift 
their  terms. 

Secondly,  observe,  that  from  the  exclusive  nature  of  the 
twelve  apostles'  office,  none  besides  themselves  could  pos- 
sibly possess  it  during  their  lives ;  consequently,  nothing 
possessed  by  any  other  ministers  during  the  apostles'  lives 
belonged  to  this  exclusive  office.  To  see  the  truth  of  the 
former  part  of  this  sentence :  suppose  that  any  other 
ministers,  during  the  lives  of  the  twelve  apostles,  pos- 
sessed what  are  called  their  prerogatives  in  common  with 
them,  (the  solecism  must  be  excused,)  it  is  clear  as  the 
light  that  such  things  ceased  to  be  the  prerogatives  of  the 
twelve  the  moment  they  were  possessed  by  others  in 
common  with  them.  This  could  not  be  succession,  but 
possession  in  common.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  from 
the  exclusive  nature  of  the  twelve  apostles'  office,  none 
besides  themselves  could  possibly  possess  it  during  their 
lives  ;  and,  consequently,  that  nothing  possessed  by  any 
*  Dodwelli  Diss.  Cyprian,  No.  6,  §  17, 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        41 

Other  ministers,  during  the  apostles'   lives,   belonged  to 
these  exclusive  prerogatives. 

Thirdly,  then,  it  follows  necessarily,  that  as  Timothy, 
and  Titus,  and  Epaphroditus,  were  not  of  the  twelve,  no 
argument  can  be  deduced  from  any  thing  in  their  case  in 
favour  of  the  apostleship  of  modem  bishops.  Yet  these 
advocates  fill  their  volumes  with  tirades  about  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  Epaphroditus,  as  prototypes  of  modem  bishops. 

Fourthly.  To  retort  their  own  argument  about  names 
and  things  upon  themselves — it  would  signify  nothing  for 
the  divine  right  of  the  prerogatives  of  bishops  were  they 
sometimes  called  apostles  by  name,  for  all  preachers  of  the 
gospel  were  sometimes  called  by  that  name  ;  they  must 
prove  the  things  apart  from  the  name ;  that  bishops,  as 
apostles,  have  what  no  other  preachers  of  the  gospel  have. 
This  brings  us  to  things,  to  the  prerogative  of  the  twelve 
apostles  :  the  proud  claim  of  this  system. 

What,  then,  were  the  prerogatives  of  the  twelve  apostles, 
EXCLUSIVELY  posscssed  by  them,  as  distinguished  from 
all  other  gospel  ministers  whatever?  They  were  the 
following : — 

1.  Immediate  vocation.  Gal.  i,  1,  "Paul,  an  apostle, 
(not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God 
the  Father,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead.") 

The  ordination  of  an  apostle,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word,  was  not  only  immediately  by  Christ  himself,  without 
any  imposition  of  hands,  but  it  was  complete  at  once,  without 
the  individual  having  passed  through  any  other  grades  or 
offices  in  the  ministry  preparatory  to  it.  Now  no  bishop 
was  ever  appointed  immediately  by  Christ  himself:  high 
Churchmen  maintain  imposition  of  hands  as  necessary  to 
their  ordination  ;  and,  w^hat  is  perhaps  most  to  the  point 
in  hand,  no  man,  on  the  scheme  of  high  Churchmen,  can 
be  made  a  bishop  who  has  not  previously  received  what 
they  call  the  indelible  character  of  the  priesthood,  in  his 
ordination  to  the  office  of  a  presbyter.  A  bishop,  who  had 
never  been  a  presbyter,  is  considered  incapable  of  admin- 
istering the  sacraments,  and  of  conferring  orders.*  How 
is  it  possible,  then,  that  bishops  should  be  properly  apostles, 
when  the  ordination  of  the  one  so  essentially  differs  from 
the  other,  both  in  the  form  and  essence  of  the  ordination, 
*  Field  on  the  Church,  p.  157,  fol.,  1628. 


42        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  in  the  qualifications  of  the  individuals  to  be  ordained  1 
Scriptural  bishops,  we  know,  were  ordained  such  at  once, 
without  passing  through  any  preparatory  grades  in  the 
ministry ;  but,  then,  the  reason  is  plain,  viz.,  that,  in  the 
Scriptures,  bishops  and  presbyters  were  one  and  the  same 
office. 

2.  Apostles  were  taught  the  gospel  by  immediate  reve- 
lation: Gal.  i,  12,  "For  I  neither  received  it  of  man, 
neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

3.  They  were  infallible  teachers  of  it  to  others  :  Gal. 
i,  8, 12,  "  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  For  I  neither 
received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ." 

4.  They  had  a  commission  of  universal  authority. 
2  Cor.  X,  13-16;  xiii,  10;  Rom.  i,  14-16. 

They  had  a  universal  commission  of  divine  infallible 
authority,  as  to  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  morals.  It  is  not 
clear  that  they  had  any  absolute  authority  in  any  thing 
else.  They  ordained  elders  or  presbyters  :  so  did  Barna- 
bas ;  so  did  Timothy  and  Titus,  who  were  not  of  the 
twelve ;  and  so  did  presbyters,  they  ordained  Timothy 
himself.  But,  when  ministers  had  been  ordained  and 
appointed  to  any  church,  there  is  no  decisive  proof  that 
the  apostles  alone  governed  those  ministers.  Dodwell 
remarks  justly,  that  "  their  chief  work  was  rather  the 
planting  of  churches,  than  the  ruling  of  churches."* 
Ignatius,  the  oracle  of  high  Churchmen,  says,  "  It  is  not 
lawful  without  the  bishop,  neither  to  baptize,  nor  to  cele- 
brate the  holy  communion.  He  that  does  any  thing  with- 
out his  knowledge,  ministers  unto  the  devil."  On  the  high 
Church  scheme,  the  apostles,  during  their  lives,  were  the 
only  real  bishops.  Now  did  the  apostles  claim  any  such 
authority  as  this  over  every  special  act  of  other  ministers  ? 
Never !  The  thing,  indeed,  was  impossible.  How  could 
they  be  everywhere  to  appoint  every  baptism,  and  every 
minute  detail  of  ministerial  duty  1    But  there  is  not  only 

*  Dodwelli  Diss.  Cyprian.,  dissert,  vi,  sec.  17.  "  Illorum  (Apos- 
tolorum)  opera  prfecipua  in  disseminandis  potius,  quam  rcgendis,  Ec- 
clesiis  coUocata  est." 


Ox\  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  43 

no  proof  that  the  apostles  alone  governed  ministers  as  well 
as  the  church,  but  there  is  no  direct  proof  to  the  contrary. 
The  ministers  of  the  seven  churches  were  some  of  them 
remiss,  and  some  wicked :  who,  then,  takes  authority  to 
correct  and  judge  them  ?  The  apostle  John  ?  No  ;  he  that 
walks  in  the  midst  of  the  golden  candlesticks  :  he  does  it. 
To  say  that  John  might,  but  did  not,  would  be  to  say  that 
the  Saviour  should  first  have  rebuked  John  for  this  remiss- 
ness ;  yet  nothing  of  the  kind  is  found  in  the  divine  mes- 
sage, but  every  thing  to  the  contrary.  It  may  be  asked, 
What  cure  is  there  for  wicked  ministers  ?  We  answer.  The 
Scriptural  method  is,  to  teach  the  people  to  forsake  them ; 
and  to  leave  them  to  the  judgment  of  God.  This  as  to 
the  church  catholic  :  of  course,  every  particular  church 
has  the  right  to  expel  bad  ministers,  as  well  as  bad  men, 
from  its  communion. 

5.  Apostles  had  the  power  not  only  of  working  miracles, 
but  also  of  COMMUNICATING  miraculous  powers  to  others. 
Acts  viii,  14-19 ;  xix,  6  ;   1  Tim.  i,  6. 

I  believe  there  is  nothing  more  than  these  five  preroga- 
tives that  belong  exclusively  to  the  apostles :  all  other 
ministers  preached  and  baptized.  It  is  most  certain  that 
others,  especially  presbyters,  ordained  persons  to  the 
ministry.  1  Tim.  iv,  14.  Presbyters  also  nded  or 
GOVERNED  the  cliurch,  Acts  xx,  28  :  1  Tim.  v,  17,  "  Let 
the  elders  (presbyters)  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy 
of  double  honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  the  word 
and  doctrine." 

In  which,  then,  and  in  what  number  of  these  prerogatives 
do  modem  bishops  succeed  the  twelve  apostles  ?  Have 
they  had  immediate  vocation,  not  of  men,  but  by  Jesus 
Christ  1  Are  they  taught  the  gospel  by  immediate  revela- 
tion? These  advocates  dare  not  claim  either  of  these 
prerogatives.  Are  they  infallihle  teachers  of  others  ?  No. 
Have  they  a  commission  of  universal  infallible  authority, 
as  to  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals,  in  all  churches  ?  Have 
they  universal  jurisdiction,  as  bishops  1  This  they  know 
to  be  a  contradiction  to  other  parts  of  their  scheme,  viz., 
that  there  can  be  only  one  bishop  in  one  diocess.  Have 
they,  then,  the  power  of  communicating  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  rite  of  confirmation  is 
founded  on  the  assumption  of  this,  or  it  is  founded  on 


44        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

nothing  that  was  the  prerogative  of  the  twelve.  The 
assumption  confounds  the  advocates ;  to  give  it  up,  gives 
up  their  cause.  The  claim,  therefore,  of  the  prerogatives 
of  the  twelve  apostles  for  modern  bishops,  by  these  high 
Church  advocates,  is  utterly  unsustained  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament. This  decides  the  whole  matter.  The  claim  is  as 
baseless  as  it  is  bold.  No  names  on  earth  ought  to  save 
it,  for  a  moment,  from  the  reprobation  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church. 

Thus  much  for  Scriptural  authority,  both  as  to  the 
name  and  the  thing ;  and  no  other  authority  can  decide 
the  question.  However,  though  ecclesiastical  authority 
will  be  discussed  at  length  in  the  subsequent  sections,  yet 
as  it  will  give  a  unity  and  completeness  to  the  present 
article,  we  shall  here  briefly  clear  the  subject  of  eccle- 
siastical authority. 

What  ecclesiastical  authority,  then,  is  there  for  this 
claim  of  modern  bishops,  being,  as  apostles,  really  such, 
and  exclusively  the  successors  of  the  apostles  ?  Some 
readers  may  be  surprised,  when  I  say,  that  there  is  not  a 
single  Christian  father  who  says  so:  not  one.  What! 
not  Theodoret  ?  No,  not  Theodoret !  Hear  him  :  he  says, 
"  Those  who  are  now  called  bishops  were  (anciently) 
called  apostles.  But  shortly  after,  the  name  of  apostles 
was  appropriated  to  such  as  were  apostles  indeed,  a/irj^iog 
Arrog'oXoL,  truly  apostles."  Here,  then,  even  Theodoret 
declares  that  bishops  are  not  apostles  truly  ;  that  is,  they 
are  truly,  as  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  twelve,  not 
apostles  at  all !  What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  his  ambi- 
guous expression,  "  Those  who  are  now  called  bishops 
were  anciently  called  apostles  ?"  Well,  in  the  first  place, 
he  guards  his  own  statement  by  declaring  that  those  now 
called  bishops  are  not  "  truly  apostles."  What  are  they 
then  ?  What  you  please,  but  not  truly  apostles.  It  is 
no  matter  to  this  argument  what  you  call  them.  He  says 
they  were  called  bishops ;  and  his  language  imports  that 
they  then,  in  his  ti?ne,  exercised  authority  having  some 
resemblance  to  what  those  anciently  and  truly  called 
apostles,  exercised.  This  is  speaking  to  a  fact,  and  not 
to  the  law  of  the  case.  We  grant  the  truth  of  the  fact : 
but  what  does  it  prove  ?  That  they  were  really  apostles  ? 
No :    Theodoret  himself  positively  denies  that  as  fact ; 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        45 

and  shows,  that,  even  in  his  day,  they  were  believed  not 
to  be  truly  apostles.  And  Ambrose,  as  cited  by  Amalarius, 
positively  declares,  that  the  ancient  bishops  were  so  far 
from  thinking,  with  our  modems,  that  apostle  was  truly 
the  appropriate  denomination  for  bishops,  that  they  thought 
it  NOT  DECENT  to  assume  to  themselves  the  name  of 
apostles.  Thus  we  find  their  own  authorities  destroy 
their  scheme. 

Never  was  there  a  more  bold'  and  baseless  fabrication 
palmed  upon  the  public  than  this,  that  apostle  was  the 
APPROPRIATE  name  for  bishops.  The  authors  of  it  catch 
at  some  ambiguous  expressions  in  writers  o^  the  fifth  cen- 
tury ;  but  what  evidence  do  they  bring  from  the  Scriptures, 
or  the  purest  and  earliest  writers  of  the  Christian  church  ? 
The  Scriptures  give  no  evidence  for  it,  but  the  contrary. 
In  those  authors  whom  high  Churchmen  quote  with  the 
greatest  triumph,  Ignatius,  Tertullian,  and  Cyprian,  all  the 
evidence  is  against  this  position  of  apostle  being  the 
appropriate  name  for  bishop.  Everywhere  their  highest 
declamations  are  made  for  them  under  the  name — not  of 
apostles,  but  of  bishops.  What  a  humiliation  to  men  of 
learning,  to  lend  themselves  to  the  propagation  of  such 
strange  perversions  of  the  facts  of  the  early  history  of  the 
church ! 

But  does  not  Ambrose  say,  that  bishops  were,  by  eccle- 
siastical wTiters,  called  apostles  at  first  ?  He  does.  But 
he  does  not  say  that  bishops  exclusively  were  called 
apostles.  He  knew  better.  "  Many  were  called  apostles 
hy  way  of  imitation,^''*  says  Eusebius  ;  an  earlier  and  better 
authority  on  such  subjects  than  Theodoret  or  Ambrose. 
So  he  calls  "  Thaddeus,  one  of  the  seventy^''  an  apostle. 
The  learned  Valesius's  note  on  the  place  is  as  follows  : — 
"  Apostle  here  is  to  be  taken  in  a  large  sense.  After  the 
same  manner  every  nation  and  city  termed  them  apostles, 
from  whom  they  first  received  the  truth  of  the  gospel. 
This  name  was  not  only  given  to  the  twelve,  but  all  their 

DISCIPLES,  COMPANIONS,  and  ASSISTANTS,  WCrO  GENERALLY 

called  APOSTLES."  They  all  acted  as  missionaries  in 
spreading  the  gospel.  The  word  apostle  means  a  mis- 
sionary. See,  then,  the  goodly  company  of  apostles ! 
Indeed  Suicer  shows  that  women,  as  well  as  men,  were 
*  Euseb.  E.  Hist.,  lib.  i,  c.  12. 


46         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

sometimes  called  apostles  by  ecclesiastical  writers ;  and 
that  the  emperor  Constantine  and  Helen  were-  both  fre- 
quently called,  by  ecclesiastical  writers,  Loairog-oXoi,  apos- 
tolic compeers^*  So  St.  Augustine  says,  "  that,  generally, ^^ 
in  his  time,  "  it  was  applied  to  such  as  were  introduced 
into  the  ministry."  He  divides  apostles  'va.io  four  classes, 
and  says  the  third  sort  who  were  called  apostles  in  his 
day,  were  such  as  were  smuggled  into  the  priesthood  by 
popular  favour — '■' favor e  viilgi  in  sacerdtium  subrogatiP\ 
Jerome  is  plainer  still.  He  makes  the  same  division  of 
apostles  into  four  classes.  In  the  first,  he  places  Isaiah, 
the  other  prophets,  and  St.  Paul ;  in  the  second,  Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun  ;  the  third  he  states  to  be,  "  When  any  one 
is  ordained  by  the  favour  and  request  of  men.  As  we 
now,"  says  he,  "  see  many,  not  according  to  the  will  of 
God,  but  by  bribing  the  favour  of  the  multitude,  become 
S'/nuggled  into  the  priesthood. "|  Here  it  is  plain  from  the 
testimony  of  these  great  men,  earlier  and  better  autho- 
rities than  Theodoret,  that,  in  their  days,  any  priest,  all 
priests,  even  the  worst  of  priests,  or  presbyters,  were 
cojiMONLY  denominated  apostles.  Grotius  shows,  that  the 
emperors  Honorius  and  Arcadius,  in  their  laws,  called  the 
Jewish  presbyters,  apostles.*^  Tertullian  expressly  calls 
the  seventy  disciples,  apostles  ;\\  though  Bishop  Taylor 
declares  that  they  were  only  presbyters.  Chrysostom 
and  Theophylact,  also,  are  mentioned  by  Estius  on  1  Cor. 
XV,  7,  as  applying  the  term  apostle  to  the  severity ;  so  also 
Erasmus  and  Calvin,  on  the  same  place. 

Such  is  the  result  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  as  to  the 
appropriate  name  of  bishops.  Bishops  were  sometimes 
called  apostles  ;  but  not  bishops  only.  "  Many,"  says  Eu- 
sebius,  "were  called  apostles  byway  oi  imitation. ^^  This 
name  was  not  only  given,  by  ecclesiastical  writers,  to  the 
twelve,  but  to  the  seventy  disciples ;  and,  says  Valesius, 
to  all  the  disciples,  companions,  and  assistants  of  the 
apostles."  Augustine  and  Jerome  prove  that  it  was  com- 
monly applied,  in  their  day,  to  any  priest,  to  all  priests, 

*  Suiceri  Thesam.,  i,  477,  and  1459. 

t  August  0pp.,  torn,  iv,  App.,  p.  9,  ed.  Sugd.,  1664. 

X  Hieronymi  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  lib.  i,  cap  i. 

()  Grotii  Annot.  in  Poll  Syn.,  iv,  1,  280. 

II  TertuU.  adversus  Marcion,  lib.  iv,  cap.  24. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        47 

even  to  the  worst  of  priests.  However,  the  bishops  of 
that  day,  knowing  that  it  did  not  truly  belong  to  them, 
thought  it  not  decent  to  use  it,  and  to  be  called  apostles  ; 
they,  therefore,  laid  it  aside.  Their  modesty  was  com- 
mendable :  in  this  our  advocates  do  not  choose  to  be  their 
successors. 

But,  if  the  argument  from  the  name  fails  them,  what  was 
the  fact  as  to  the  thing  itself?  Do  ecclesiastical  writers 
say  that  bishops  were,  in  fact,  the  successors  to  the  prero- 
gatives of  the  apostles  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that  they  soon 
began  to  write  in  an  inflated  style  about  bishops.  Their 
opinions  are  worth  no  more  than  their  reasons  for  those 
opinions  are  worth ;  their  opinions  can  decide  nothing 
wfthout,  or  against,  the  Scriptures.  We  have  seen  that, 
in  fact,  bishops  possess  no  Scriptural  claim  to  the  preroga- 
tives of  the  twelve  apostles.  But  do  ecclesiastical  writers 
really  say  that  bishops  possessed  these  prerogatives  ?  Do 
they  say  that  bishops  have  immediate  inspiration  of  what 
they  teach  ?  that  they  are  infallible  ?  that  they  have  un- 
limited authority?  or  that  they  have  the  prerogative  of 
communicating  the  power  to  work  miracles  ?  Speak,  ye 
lofty  succession  men !  Ye  are  silent !  you  dare  not  say 
that  they  do  !  I  dare  say  that  they  do  not.  Prove  me  mis- 
taken. Nay,  so  far  from  bishops  being  said  to  be  the 
exclusive  successors  of  the  apostles  in  any  thing,  the 
greatest  ranter  in  antiquity  for  bishops,  viz.,  Ignatius,  or 
rather  the  corrupter  of  his  epistles,  plainly  says,  that 
"presbyters  preside  in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the 
apostles."  "  Be  ye  subject  to  your  presbyters  as  to  the 
apostles  of  Jesus  Christ."  "  Let  all  reverence  the  presby- 
ters as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  as  the  college  of 
APOSTLES."  "  See  that  ye  follow  the  presbyters  as  the 
apostles.'''' 

Do  ecclesiastical  writers  say,  that  anciently  bishops 
governed  the  church  as  bishops  now  govern  it  ?  They  say 
that  the  government  of  the  church  was  in  common,  that  is, 
by  the  common  council  of  the  presbyters,  the  first  presbyter* 
being  for  distinction's  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  order,! 
called  bishop.  Even  Ignatius  calls  this  council  of  the 
presbyters    "  the  sanhedrim   of  God — the   council  of  the 

*  Ambrosii  (;!om.  in  Ephes.  iv. 
+  Hieronymi  Com.  in  Tit.,  cap.  i. 


48        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION, 

apostles — the  college  of  the  apostles."*  And  Cyprian,  next 
to  Ignatius  as  to  high  notions  about  bishops,  declares  that 
he  did  "  nothing  without  the  council  of  presbyters ;  that 
the  mutual  honour  of  each  required  him  to  act  in  this 
manner."!  But  do  bishops  now  govern  the  church  so  ? 
No  such  thing.  At  the  conference,  at  Worcester  House, 
about  the  king's  (Charles  II.)  declaration,  when  ministers 
desired  that  the  bishops  should  exercise  their  church 
power  with  the  counsel  and  consent  of  presbyters,  Bishop 
Cosins  (one  of  the  most  learned  bishops  in  the  canons, 
councils,  and  fathers)  presently  replied,  "  If  your  majesty 
grants  this,  you  will  unbishop  your  hishops^X 

Do  the  early  fathers  say  that  bishops  had,  by  divine 
right,  the  sole  power  and  authority  of  ordaining  to  the 
ministry  ?  Never !  Ignatius  says,  that  presbyters  were 
not  even  to  baptize,  nor  do  any  thing,  without  the  bishops. 
This  no  more  proves  that  they  could  not  ordain  than  they 
could  not  baptize.  But  the  fathers  give  us  the  reason  of 
this  restriction  upon  presbyters,  viz.,  that  it  was  for  the 
HONOUR  of  the  bishop,  for  the  peace  of  the  church,  and  to 
prevent  divisions :  so  say  Tertullian,  Jerome,  and  Augus- 
tine. All  this  proves  their  opinion  of  a  divine  right  ioT  good 
order,  and  peace  in  the  church,  and  that  such  an  arrange- 
ment was  the  best  way  of  securing  these  ends  ;  and  it 
proves  nothing  more.  All  deduced  from  it  besides  is  mere 
sophistry  and  chicanery.  But  the  matter  of  ecclesiastical 
authority  will  be  discussed  more  at  large  in  the  following 
sections. 

The  result,  then,  of  this  investigation  of  the  apostleship 
of  bishops,  is,  1st.  That  the  greatest  champions  of  high 
Church  episcopacy  are  divided  among  themselves  upon  it ; 
2d.  That  the  scheme  necessarily  concedes  that  Scripture 
bishops  and  presbyters  were  one  and  the  same  order; 
3d.  That  every  prerogative  which  the  twelve  apostles  had, 
as  distinguished  from  Scripture  presbyters,  was  temporary 
and  extraordinary,  and  that  bishops  inherit  none  of  them  ; 
4th.  That  as  to  the  name  of  apostle,  as  appropriate  to  the 

*  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Mag.  et  ad  Trail. 

t  Cyprian  Op.  Ep.  6,  ed.  Pamel. 

%  Calamy's  Abridgment  of  Bapter's  Life  and  Times,  vol.  i,  p.  171, 
Loud.,  1702,  12mo. ;  and  see  decisive  evidence  on  the  same  point  in 
Abp.  Usher's  Reduction  of  Episcopacy. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         49 

twelve,  the  claim  of  bishops  to  it  is  absurd,  as  it  could  not 
be  appropriate  to  the  twelve,  and  yet  common  to  others  ; 
5th.  That,  as  used  in  a  larger  sense,  all  preachers  of  the 
gospel  had  it  alike,  in  the  apostles'  days :  and  after  those 
days  also.  So  that  neither  in  the  name,  nor  in  the  thing, 
is  one  single  prerogative  found,  to  Avhich  bishops  have  any 
exclusive  claim.  Presbyters,  therefore,  are  as  much  apos- 
tles as  bishops  are  ;  and,  by  the  word  of  God,  as  the  re- 
formers declare,  they  are  one  and  the  same  office  and  order: 
all  distinctions  between  them  are  of  human  origin ;  and 
consequently  have  no  more  than  human  authority. 

Finally,  then,  we  conclude  with  Dodwell,  that  "  the 
office  of  the  apostles  perished  with  the  apostles  ;  in  which 
office  there  never  was  any  succession  to  any  of  them,  except 
to  Judas  the  traitor  :" — with  the  learned  Dr.  Barrow, 
we  conclude,  "  The  apostolical  office,  as  such,  was  per- 
sonall  and  temporary;  and  therefore,  according  to  its  nature 
and  desig-ne,  not  successive  or  communicable  to  others  in 
perpetuall  descendence  from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in 
all  respects  extraordinary,  conferred  in  a  speciall  man- 
ner, designed  for  speciall  purposes,  discharged  by  speciall 
aids,  endowed  with  speciall  privileges,  as  was  needfuU  for 
the  propagation  of  Christianity,  and  founding  of  churches."* 
With  Whitaker,  the  celebrated  Protestant  chan!pion,  that 
"  Mimus  episcopi  nihil  est  ad  munus  apostolicum — that  the 
offce  of  a  bishop  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  offce  of  an 
apostle.'"]  And  thus,  being  fortified  by  Protestant  autho- 
rities, we  concur  with  Bellarmine,  the  great  Popish  con- 
troversialist, that  ^^  Episcopi  nullam  hahent  partem  ver<B 
apostoliccB  auctoritas — Bishops  have  no  part  of  the 
true  apostolical  authority. "I 

The  early  bishops  were,  indeed,  frequently  called  apos- 
tles by  ecclesiastical  writers,  because  they  then  were  the 
chief  in  preaching  the  gospel,  and  converting  the  heathen 
to  God.  This  is  what  our  missionaries  now  do.  They 
are  the  modern  apostles  of  Christianity.  Xavier,  who  never 
was  a  bishop,  was  the  apostle  of  Japan.     But  when  do 

*  Dr.  Barrow  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  Sup.  iii,  p.  113,  ed.  Lond., 
1680,  4to. 

t  Whitaker,  de  Pontif.,  Quest,  iii,  cap.  3,  69,  ut  citatur  in  Alt.  Da- 
masc  ,  p.  104. 

%  Bellarm.  de  Romano  Pont.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  25. 
3 


50        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

our  modern  bishops  undertake  this  labour  ?  At  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  Latimer  lashes  them  for  their  entire 
neglect  of  preaching.  Stimulated  by  the  zeal  of  other 
churches,  a  few  persons  have  gone  out  from  the  Church 
of  England  as  bishops  among  the  heathen,  as  the  bishop 
of  Calcutta,  &c.  Let  them  have  their  due  praise.  The 
writer  honours  such  men  as  the  present  bishop  of  Calcutta. 
However,  they  are  not  strictly  apostolical  bishops :  they 
generally  go  where  the  laborious  missionary  has  first 
laid  the  foundation.  There  perhaps  has  not  been  a 
single  instance,  for  the  last  thousand  years,  of  a  bishop 
deserving  the  title  of  apostolical  bishop,  by  going  to  preach 
Christ  where  he  was  not  named.  Away,  then,  with  all 
this  parade  about  apostolical  bishops  ! 

§  3. — High  Priesthood  of  Bishops. 

Another  argTiment  is  attempted  to  be  deduced  from  the 
HIGH  PRIESTHOOD  among  the  Jews.  The  very  learned 
Henry  Dodwell,  in  his  "  One  Altar,"  lays  great  stress  upon 
this  argument.  See  also  Bishop  Beveridge,  Cod.  Can. 
Ecc.  Prim.  Vindicat.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  11,  sec.  9.  It  is  a  matter 
of  regret  to  find  such  excellent  men,  forced,  by  a  false 
system,  to  such  unsuitable  arguments.  They  assume,  as 
indisputable,  that  the  high  priest  among  the  Jews  was  of  a 
different  order  from  that  of  the  other  priests.  This  is  more 
easily  asserted  than  proved.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  the 
whole  priesthood,  including  equally  the  high  priest  and  all 
the  other  priests,  as  one  order.  Num.  xviii,  1  ;  Heb.  vii, 
11,  12,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Aaron,  Thou  and  thy 
sons  and  thy  father's  house  with  thee  shall  bear  the  ini- 
quity of  the  sanctuary :  and  thou  and  thy  sons  with  thee 
shall  bear  the  iniquity  of  your  priesthood." — "  If  there- 
fore perfection  were  by  the  Levitical  priesthood,  (for  under 
it  the  people  received  the  law,)  what  further  need  was 
there  that  another  priest  should  rise  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedec,  and  not  be  called  after  the  order  of  Aaron? 
For  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made  of 
necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law."  Bishop  Beveridge 
himself  asserts,  that  even  "  Aaron  is  never,  in  the  books  of 
Moses,  styled  any  thing  more  than  simply  the  priest.  In 
these  books,  neither  Aaron,  nor  Eleazar  who  succeeded 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        51 

him  in  the  high  priest's  office,  is  ever  any  otherwise  deno- 
minated than  by  the  term  priest,  as  common  with  him  and 
all  the  other  priests.  Nor,  through  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
except  in  two  or  three  places  where  the  later  administra- 
tion of  the  Jewish  church  is  mentioned,  is  the  title  "  high" 
priest  used ;  though  the  mention  of  his  office  in  superin- 
tending the  other  priests  is  constantly  occurring."*  But 
still  this  title  is  not,  in  the  Scriptures,  given  exclusively  to 
one,  the  first  or  head  priest ;  "  for,"  says  Godwyn,  "  when 
King  David  distributed  the  whole  company  of  them  into 
twenty-four  ranks  or  courses,  the  chief  of  every  rank  was 
called  Summus  Sacerdos  istius  classis — the  chief  priest  of 
that  rank.  Hence  it  is,  that  we  read  of  many  high  priests 
assembled  together,  Mark  xiv,  l."t  That  there  was  not 
any  essential  difference  between  the  office  of  the  high 
priest,  usually  so  called,  and  the  office  of  the  other  priests, 
is  demonsirated  from  this,  that  in  the  case  of  the  high 
priest's  pollution,  another  of  the  priests  performed  his  ojffice^ 
and  was  called  Sagan,  the  high  priest's  vicar  or  deputy.J 
The  question,  indeed,  is  of  no  real  importance  to  our  argu- 
ment ;  for  the  Aaronical  priesthood  has  ceased  for  ever :  and 
"  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made  of  necessity 
a  change  of  the  /««.•',"  Heb.  vii,  12.  Nevertheless,  the  as- 
sumption, so  common  with  high  Churchmen,  that  there 
were  really  two  incompatihle  orders  of  priests  under  the 
law,  is,  I  believe,  as  utterly  false,  as  the  reasoning  from  it 
to  the  subject  of  the  Christian  ministry  is  utterly  irrelevant. 
The  simple  and  true  answer,  however,  to  all  they  can  draw 
from  the  high  priest's  office,  is,  that  we  have,  as  Chris- 
tians, one,  and  only  one  High  Priest,  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  To  attempt  more  than  this  runs  direct  into  the 
popedom.  Indeed,  this  assumption  of  bishops  being  high 
priests  is  not  the  only  case  in  which  may  be  clearly  seen 
the  tendency  of  high  Church  principles  to  go  direct  into 
Popery.  The  whole  system  of  high  Church  episcopacy  is 
supported  by  arguments  so  similar  to  those  used  to  support 
Popery,  that  the  celebrated  Treatise  of  Dr.  Barrow  against 
the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope  might,  in  great  part,  by  a 
change  of  persons,  the  bishops  for  the  pope,  be  applied 

*  Codex  Can.  Ecc.  Prim.  Vinci.,  &c.,  p.  316,  ed.  Load.,  1678,  4to. 
t  Godwyn's  Moses  and  Aaron,  b.  i,  c.  5. 
%  See  Godwyn,  as  just  quoted. 


52         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

with  equal  effect  to  the  destruction  of  the  one  as  of  the 
other.  A  few  passages  will  be  found  in  this  Essay,  ex- 
tracted from  that  unanswerable  work,  exemplifying  the 
truth  of  this  remark.  When  will  Protestant  bishops,  and 
high-flying  divines,  lay  aside  these  foolish,  judaizing, 
Popish  reasonings  ?  The  continental  reformers  spake 
strongly  against  these  things  ;  and  they  were  afraid  that 
the  quantity  of  "  empty  and  Popish  ceremonies,"  as  they 
termed  them,  left  in  the  English  Church,  would  degene- 
rate into  something  of  this  kind.  The  Letters  of  Calvin, 
Martyr,  and  Zanchy  show  this.  That  sainted  youth.  King 
Edward  VI.,  thus  speaks  on  this  point:  "Moreover  the 
Papists  say,  that  as  under  the  old  law  there  was  a  high 
priest,  or  archbishop,  of  the  Jews,  so  there  ought  now  to 
be  a  HEAD,  or  supreme  minister,  among  the  Christians. 
To  which  I  answer,  that  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  and 
Moses  represented  the  supremacy  of  our  Saviour  Christ, 
and  not  the  pope."  See  his  Treatise  against  the  Su- 
premacy of  the  Pope.  This,  with  other  evidence  to  be 
adduced  in  the  following  parts  of  this  Essay,  will  show 
that  this  succession  scheme  does  not  properly  belong  to 
the  English  Church,  as  established  at  the  Reformation, 
but  that  it  is  a  corruption  of  later  date. 

^  4. — The  Case  of  Timothy  and  Titus  pleaded  to  defend 
High  Church  Episcopacy. 

Again,  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus  is  brought  for- 
ward to  support  this  scheme.  "  As  I  besought  thee  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that 
thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doc- 
trine," 1  Tim.  i,  3.  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remem- 
brance that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee, 
by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands,"  2  Tim.  i,  6.  "  For  this 
CAUSE  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order 
the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every 
city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee,"  Titus  iv,  5.  These  are  the 
principal  passages  on  which  the  stress  is  laid.  From 
these  passages  an  attempt  is  made  to  prove  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  made  bishops  in  the  modern  sense  of  these 
terms  ;  the  one,  of  Ephesus,  and  the  other  of  Crete  ;  that 
they  had  the  government  of  ministers  as  well  as  of  the 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         53 

people ;  and  that,  as  such,  they  had  the  sole  power  of 
ordaining  other  ministers.  The  reader  must  be  struck 
with  the  shifting,  protean  character  of  this  scheme.  We 
have  just  seen  an  attempt  to  make  modem  bishops  to  be 
properly  apostles ;  and  the  authorities  they  use  say,  "  that 
those  who  are  noio  called  bishops,  were  called  apostles, 
and  that  anciently  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same 
PERSONS  ;"  that  is,  that  modern  bishops  and  ancient  bish- 
ops are  not  the  same.  And  Dr.  Bentley  is  positive  that 
their  scheme  makes  modern  bishops  not  "  succeed  the 
Scripture  bishops,  but  the  Scripture  apostles  ;"  and  that 
presbyters,  therefore,  while  the  apostles  lived,  were 
'ETTiaKonoi,'"  bishops.  But  here,  in  the  case  of  Timothy 
and  Titus,  we  find  the  ground  is  changed,  and  an  attempt 
is  made  to  claim  superiority  for  modern  bishops  from  Timo- 
thy and  Titus,  as  ancient  bishops.  The  reason  of  this 
shifting  character  is  plain  enough — its  ablest  advocates 
find  no  foundation  sufficient  and  firm  beneath  them.  A 
sure  sign  of  a  weak  cause  ! 

In  the  first  place,  we  may  remark,  that  all  the  advocates 
for  making  modern  bishops  to  be  successors  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  and  not  of  Scripture  bishops,  must  give  up  all  ar- 
guments from  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus  in  favour  of 
their  scheme  ;  see  pages  33  and  41  of  this  Essay,  where 
this  point  is  more  largely  brought  out.  This  silences 
Bishop  Taylor,  Dr.  Hook,  the  Oxford  Tract-men  and  all 
such  writers  and  their  followers,  as  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 

Secondly.  Whatever  they  v/ere,  their  special  duties,  as 
above  signified,  cannot  be  brought  in  as  an  unalterable  rule 
for  a  standing  order  of  men,  with  the  same  powers  and 
authority  ;  (1.)  Because  there  is  no  intimation  of  any  such 
thing  in  the  text;  (2.)  Because  they  had  the  direct  or  im- 
mediate authority  of  the  apostles  for  what  they  did,  which 
none  others  can  plead ;  (3.)  Because  some  steps  might  be 
necessary  in  places  where  a  ministry  had  never  existed 
among  a  newly-gathered  people,  which  are  not  necessary 
after  the  establishment  of  a  church  and  its  ministry ; 
(4.)  However,  the  truth  is,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  did 
nothing,  and  were  commanded  to  do  nothing,  but  what 
a  superintendent  in  the  Lutheran  church,  a  senior  or 
moderator  in  the  French  church,  &c.,  would  have  con- 
sistently performed  in  similar  circumstances  ;  and  yet  this 


54         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

would  be  no  proof  that  such  a  superintendent  was,  by  di- 
vine right,  possessed  of  powers  and  authority  incompatible 
with  the  other  presbyters  of  that  church ;  for  all  these 
churches  solemnly  maintain  equality,  by  divine  right, 
among  all  gospel  ministers.  The  following  extract  from 
the  "  London  Cases,"  that  is,  discourses  written  by  a 
number  of  bishops  and  divines  of  the  Church  of  England 
against  Dissent,  will  establish  what  I  say.  "  Pass  we 
next,"  says  the  writer,  "  to  the  reformed  churches  of  Ger- 
many, which  are  in  effect  governed  by  bishops,  whom  they 
call  superintendents.  Their  office  is  described  in  the  Har- 
mony of  Confessions,  p.  227,  to  visit  parochial  ministers, 
to  preside  in  synods,  to  examine  and  ordain  persons  fit  for 
the  ministry,  &c.  And  when  in  the  Book  of  Policy 
(A.  D.  1581)  for  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland,  the  office  of 
superintendents  is  described,  it  is  in  these  words  :  Imprimis, 
the  superintendent  of  Orkney  his  diocess  shall  be  the  Isles 
of  Orkney,  &c. 

"  The  superintendent  of  Rosse,  &c. 

"  The  superintendent  of  Edenbrough,  &c. 

"The  superintendent  of  Glascow,  &c. 

"  In  all  ten  superintendents  for  that  kingdom. 

"  Then  follows  the  function  and  power  of  the  superinten- 
dent— He  shall  plajit  and  erect  churches,  order,  (that  is, 
ORDAIN,)  and  appoint  ministers,  visit,  &c."* 

Now  what  did  Timothy  or  Titus  do  more  than  these  su- 
perintendents ?  Nothing.  Yet  in  these  churches,  while 
such  methods  were  adopted  for  peace  and  order,  no  lordly 
and  exclusive  claims,  by  divine  right,  were  set  up  for 
one  minister  against  another ;  no  principle  maintained 
declaring  all  ordinances  vain,  if  other  ministers  than 
these  superintendents  had,  by  the  consent  of  the  church, 
ordained,  &c. 

But,  thirdly,  Timothy  and  Titus  are  never  called  bishops 
in  the  Scriptures.  The  subscriptions  at  the  end  of  the 
Epistles  are  of  no  authority ;  but  only  mere  human  tradi- 
tion. And  even  were  it  proved  that  they  were  called 
bishops,  as  the  word  was  then  used,  it  would  not  follow 
that  they  were  bishops  in  the  sense  of  our  modern  high 
Churchmen.     It  will  be  seen,  as  we  proceed,  that  bishops 

*  London  Cases,  vol.  i,  Judgment  of  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches, 
&c.,  pp.  45,  46,  4to.,  1690. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         55 

and  presbyters,  in  the  apostles'  time,  were  identical.  To 
prove  their  point,  therefore,  our  succession  men  have  not 
only  to  prove  that  they  were  called  bishops,  but  they  must 
also  prove  them,  as  bishops,  to  have  had  power,  &c.,  in- 
compatible with  presbyters,  as  presbyters.  Now,  as  to 
Timothy,  he  is  called  an  evangelist :  "  But  watch  thou  in 
all  things,  endure  afflictions,  do  the  work  of  an  evangel- 
ist, make  full  proof  of  thy  ministry,"  2  Tim.  iv,  5.  The 
first  evangelists,  like  the  first  apostles,  had  superior  gifts, 
as  is  evident  from  Eph.  iv,  11,  and  modern  bishops  can 
no  more  claim  this  office  than  any  other  minister.  As  to 
the  argument  from  tradition,  for  their  being  bishops,  we 
shall  see  what  that  is  worth  by  and  by. 

Fourthly.  Timothy  had,  most  evidently,  preshyterian  or- 
dination ;  and,  therefore,  according  to  such  men,  could  be 
nothing  more  than  a  presbyter :  "  Neglect  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  1  Tim. 
iv,  14.  The  episcopal  succession  divines  strive  hard  to 
avoid  this,  and  to  give  apostolical  ordination,  by  pleading 
2  Tim.  i,  6,  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance  that 
thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  put- 
ting on  of  my  hands.^''  To  understand  this  passage,  the 
reader  should  keep  in  mind  that  the  conferring  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  to  miraculous  powers,  belonged  peculiarly  to 
the  apostles,  as  a  proof  of  their  apostlcship.  To  see  this, 
read  attentively  the  following  passages  : — "  Now  when  the 
apostles,  w^hich  were  at  Jerusalem,  heard  that  Samaria  had 
received  the  word  of  God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and 
John  ;  who,  when  they  were  come  down,  prayed  for  them, 
that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  as  yet  he  was 
fallen  upon  none  of  them,  only  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Then  laid  they  their  hands  on 
them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  when  Simon 
SAV\^  that  through  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given,  he  offered  them  money,  saying.  Give 
me  also  this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay  hands,  he 
may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  viii,  14-19.  "And 
when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  on  them  ;  and  they  spake  with  toxgues,  and  pro- 
phesied," Acts  xix,  6.  Here  it  is  evident,  that  the  gift 
peculiarly  attending  the  laying  on  of  the  apostle's  hands, 


56         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

was  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  miraculous  power.  The 
apostle,  therefore,  laid  his  hands  on  Timothy,  that  he  might 
be  blessed  with  some  of  those  miraculous  gifts.  This 
was  a  distinct  matter  from  Timothy's  ordination,  which  was 
performed  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbyters. 
This  is  the  true  interpretation  of  these  passages.  Timo- 
thy's ordination,  therefore,  was  properly  presbyterian. 

But  suppose  we  grant  to  these  divines,  that  the  apostle 
joined  with  the  presbytery  in  Timothy's  ordination ;  what 
then  ?  O  !  it  would  be  apostolical  ordination !  and  bish- 
ops being  infolded  in  the  apostles,  it  would  be  episcopal 
ordination;  ergo,  Timothy  was  a  bishop.  If  the  argu- 
ment were  worth  any  thing,  it  would  prove  that  he  was 
ordained  an  apostle  :  but  it  has  no  foundation.  The  apos- 
tle Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  presbyters  in  every  city : 
but  they  are  never  said  to  have  ordained  bishops.  I 
doubt  not  but  high  Churchmen  think  that  it  was  very  un- 
fortunate that  St.  Paul  was  not  as  careful  about  episcopacy 
as  they  are.  They  would  have  taught  him  how  to  write 
better.  He  should  have  written,  that  Timothy  was  or- 
dained a  bishop  by  the  hands  of  the  apostles.  But  he 
wrote  by  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  Sad  stroke  to 
high  Churchmen !  Now  whatever  hands  might  be  employed, 
the  denomination  of  a  thing  is  always  taken  from  that  which 
was  designed  to  be  the  chief  cause  or  instrument  in  the  act. 
This  is  a  universal  rule.  The  hands  of  the  presbytery  are 
spoken  of  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  chief  instrumental 
cause  in  Timothy's  ordination  ;  therefore  the  ordination  of 
Timothy  was  properly  a  presbyterian  ordination.  Bishop 
Taylor  thinks  it  is  necessary  for  those  who  believe  that 
this  was  presbyterian  ordination,  to  prove  that  the  presby- 
tery was  NOT  a  company  of  bishops.*  What  work  such 
surmises  make  of  sacred  writ !  As  though  the  apostle  said 
one  thing  and  meant  another.  "  The  presbytery  that  im- 
posed hands  on  Timothy,  is,  by  all  antiquity,  expounded 
either  of  the  ofjice,\  or  of  a  college  of  presbyters^''  says  he 

*  Episcopacy  Asserted,  p.  191. 

t  Mr.  Sinclair,  in  his  "  Vindication  of  the  Episcopal  or  Apostolical 
Succession,"  at  page  23,  Lond.,  12mo.,  1839,  ventures  to  assert,  that 
*'  the  learned  Calvin  affirms,  that  the  word  presbytery  does  not,  in  this 
passage,  refer  to  any  college  or  assembly  of  presbyters,  as  conferring 
the  gift  on  Timothy  ;  but  to  the  gift  itself,  namely,  the  function  of  a 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         57 

himself,  in  the  very  same  page ;  and  yet  we  are  to  prove 
that  these  were  not  properly  presbyters,  before  we  can 
prove  that  this  was  properly  a  preshyterian  ordination  ! 
That  they  might  be  bishops,  in  a  Scriptural  sense,  we  all 
admit ;  because  bishops  and  presbyters  are,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, identical ;  but  to  contend  that  they  might  be  bishops, 
in  the  sense  in  which  these  men  now  use  the  word,  would 
reflect  on  the  apostle  in  a  manner  one  would  not  wish  to 
describe.  Yet  so  does  bigotry  blind  the  mind,  that  these 
eminent  men  make  statements  awfully  disparaging  to  the 
very  word  of  God  itself.  I  charge  them  not  with  the 
intention  of  doing  this  ;  but  I  charge  their  arguments  with 
the  consequence.     Let  him  clear  them  that  can. 

Fifthly,  to  argue,  that  because  the  apostle  says  he  be- 
sought Timothy  to  abide  at  Ephesus,  therefore  it  must 
mean  he  was  bishop  of  that  place,  is  so  puerile  as  to  be 
almost  below  notice.  If  he  had  besought  Timothy  to 
make  a  temporary  departure  from  Ephesus,  this  would 
have  implied  something  like  a  residence  there.  But  to  be- 
seech a  young  man,  who  was  generally  travelling  with  the 
apostle,  to  abide  still  in  some  particular  place, /or  a  special 
purpose  there  named,  "to  charge  some  that  they  teach 
no  other  doctrine" — and  not  a  word  about  his  bishopric 
or  residence  being  dropped,  is  all  so  void  of  proof  of  his 
being  bishop  of  Ephesus,  that  able  men  must  be  driven  to 
severe  shifts  before  they  take  up  with  such  arguments  to 
support  so  important  a  cause.  Accordingly,  the  learned 
Daille  observes,  "  Who,  without  the  assistance  of  an  ex- 
presbyter,  which  Timothy  received."  Now,  first,  this  is  partly  true 
and  partly  false.  In  his  Institutes  he  gives  the  above  opinion,  but  in  his 
notes  on  the  place,  he  delivers  a  different  judgment.  Calvin's  words, 
in  his  commentary  on  1  Tim.  iv,  14,  are,  ^'  Presbyterium — qui  hie  col- 
lectivum  nomen  esse  putant  pro  collegio  Presbyterorum  positum,  recte 
sentiunt  meo  judicio :  that  is,  they  who  understand  the  word  presbytery, 
in  this  place,  to  be  a  collective  noun,  put  to  signify  the  college  of  pres- 
byters, are,  in  my  judgment,  right  in  their  interpretation." 

Secondly,  Mr.  Sinclair's  interpretation  makes  nonsense  of  the  pas- 
sage. It  would  make  the  apostle  say,  that  the  gift  was  conferred  upon 
Timothy  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  gift  !  ! 

Thirdly,  it  grants,  after  all,  that  the  function  or  office  to  which  Timo- 
thy was  ordained,  was  "  the  function  of  a  presbyter." 

So,  in  spite  of  fate,  and  of  Mr.  Sinclair  too,  Timothy's  ordination  was 
a  preshyterian  ordination,  and  Timothy  was  ordained,  not  to  the  func- 
tion of  a  bishop,  but  to  tlae  function  of  a  presbyter  ! 
3* 


58         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

traordinary  passion,  could  ever  have  divined  a  thing  so 
fine  and  rare,  or  have  imagined,  that  to  beseech  a  man  to 
abide  in  a  city,  impUed  the  setthng  him  the  bishop  of  it, 
archbishop  of  the  province,  and  primate  of  all  the  country? 
Without  exaggerating,  the  cause  of  our  hierarchial  gentle- 
men must  needs  run  very  low,  that  they  should  be  forced 
to  have  recourse  to  such  pitiful  proof.  For  my  part," 
says  he,  "  viewing  things  without  passion,  from  the  apos- 
tle's saying  that  he  besought  Timothy  to  abide  at  Ephesus, 
I  shall  rather  conclude  on  the  contrary,  that  he  could  not 
be  the  bishop  of  that  place.  For  to  what  purpose  is  to 
heseech  a  bishop  to  abide  in  his  diocess  ?  Is  not  that  begging 
a  man  to  abide  in  a  place  where  is  bound  to  abide  ?  I 
should  not,"  says  he,  "  think  it  strange  at  all,  that  he 
should  need  to  be  besought  to  go  from  thence,  if  his  ser- 
vice was  elsewhere  needful.  But  to  beseech  him  to  stay 
in  a  place  where  he  is  fixed  by  his  charge,  and  which  he 
could  not  quit  without  offending  God,  and  failing  in  his 
duty  :  to  speak  the  truth,  this  is  a  request  that  is  not  very 
obliging ;  for  it  evidently  presupposes  that  a  man  does  not 
lay  his  duty  much  to  heart,  when  he  needs  to  be  entreated 
to  do  it.  But  however  'tis  as  to  that,  it  is  very  certain, 
that  beseeching  a  man  to  abide  in  a  place,  does  not  signify 
the  making  him  bishop  of  the  place.  If  that  had  been  the 
apostle's  thought,  without  doubt  he  would  have  expressed 
it ;  he  would  have  plainly  settled  Timothy  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus, and  left  him  there  to  exercise  that  charge."  Dodwell 
declares,  that  neither  Timothy  nor  Titus  was  resident  at 
all  anywhere,  but  were  "  itinerants,''  and  companions  of 
the  apostles  in  planting  and  settling  churches.*  And  such 
seems  really  to  have  been  the  case. 

Sixthly,  in  Paul's  final  adieu  to  the  presbyters  of  Ephe- 
sus, Acts  XX,  there  also  called  bishops,  there  is  not  a  word 
about  Timothy  either  having  been,  or  being  designed  to  be, 
placed  as  bishop  in  that  city. 

The  case  of  Titus  is  so  similar  to  that  of  Timothy,  that 
if  Timothy's  will  not  support  this  scheme,  they  can  have 
no  hope  in  that  of  Titus ;  and  the  above  observations 
apply  so  sufficiently  to  both,  that  we  shall  not  repeat  them. 
There  is  not  a  single  point  in  either  of  them,  in  proof  of 

*  See  Dodwell  De  Nupero  Schism.,  sec.  10  :  also  a  Discourse  on 
Episcopacy,  by  Dr.  John  Edwards,  chap.  9. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         59 

the  succession  scheme,  that  would  be  depended  upon  by 
any  persons  who  were  not  resolved,  at  all  hazards,  to  say 
something  to  support  a  sinking  cause.  Perhaps  we  should 
not  omit  to  notice,  that  the  very  Epistle  to  Titus  shoics 
plainly  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters  :  "  For  this 
cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order 
the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  [preshyters\ 
in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee  : — For  a  hishop  must 
be  blameless,"  &c.,  Titus  i,  5-7 — phraseology  this,  which 
clearly  shows  that  presbyter  and  bishop  in  St.  Paul's 
thoughts  and  language  were  one  and  the  same.  This 
single  passage  is  enough  to  silence  for  ever  all  attempts  to 
make  Titus  a  prop  for  this  doctrine  of  the  order  of  bishops, 
by  divine  right,  being  superior  to  presbyters  ;  for  it  evi- 
dently speaks  of  them  as  being  one  and  the  same  office. 
The  parallel  place  in  1  Tim.  iii,  1-7,  does,  on  all  just 
principles  of  exposition,  come  under  the  same  interpreta- 
tion, and  implies  that  the  apostle  taught  both  these  distin- 
guished men  of  God  the  same  doctrine  of  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  ;  and,  therefore,  neither  of  them,  in 
their  personal  history,  can  be  quoted  as  proofs  of  the 
contrary  opinion. 

^  5. —  The  Angels  of  the  Seven  Churches. 

The  only  remaining  argument,  of  which  I  am  aware,  is 
from  the  mention  of  the  angels  of  the  churches  in  the  Reve- 
lation of  St.  John.  This  is  thought  to  imply,  that  some 
one  person  had  the  power  and  authority  of  a  modern  high 
Church  hishop,  in  each  of  the  then  Asiatic  churches.  This 
is  the  most  like  a  case  in  point  of  any  thing  advanced  in 
favour  of  this  scheme.  But,  that  it  cannot  be  held  as  a 
good  argument,  the  following  remarks  will  show : — 

1 .  It  is  a  supreme  rule  of  interpretation,  that  what  is  ob- 
scure must  be  interpreted  by  what  is  clear.  Now  it  must 
clearly  appear  to  an  unbiased  mind,  from  Acts  xx,  17-20, 
that  the  church  of  Ephesus  was  governed  by  a  number 
OF  presbyters,  identical  with  bishops.  In  tliis  solemn 
charge,  and  final  farewell  of  the  apostle,  while  reviewing 
the  PAST,  and  looking  into  the  future,  and  giving,  under 
the  INSPIRATION  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  best  advice  for  the 
continual  welfare  of  the    church,  there  is  not  a  syllable 


60         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

about  placing  one  individual  over  the  other  ministers  like 
a  modern  bishop,  to  govern  the  rest.  "  There  is  no  one 
presbytery,  of  which  the  apostle  took  such  a  solemn  care, 
as  he  did  of  this  ;  and  there  is  no  doubt,  if  it  had  been  the 
mind  of  God  that  a  single  person  should  be  set  over  them, 
but  the  apostle  would  have  mentioned  it  at  this  time.  He 
tells  them  in  his  charge  to  them,  that  he  '  shunned  not  to 
declare  to  them  the  Avhole  counsel  of  God,'  Acts  xx,  27  ; 
and  immediately  adds,  verse  28,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  made 
them  bishops  of  that  flock :  this,  therefore,  is  part  of  the 
counsel  of  God,  that  the  church  (should)  be  governed  by 
the  elders  in  purity,  (by  the  presbyters  in  common.)  If 
the  superiority  of  bishops  had  been  any  part  of  the  counsel 
of  God,  the  apostle  w^ould  not  have  withheld  it  from  the 
presbyters  at  Ephesus  at  this  time.  They  that  affirm  that 
the  government  of  this  church  was  afterward  changed, 
must  bring  as  clear  proof  for  it,  as  we  do  for  this  establish- 
ment."* These  writers  will  have  it  that  Timothy  was 
sole  bishop,  as  the  angel  of  the  church  at  Ephesus  :  had 
the  excellent  Timothy  so  fallen,  as  is  described  Rev.  ii, 
4,  5  ?  This  is  hard  to  believe.  But  that  Avhat  the  apos- 
tle predicted.  Acts  xx,  29,  had  partly  taken  place,  is  not 
impossible,  nor  very  improbable. 

2.  The  book  of  Revelation  is  a  deeply  mysterious  book. 
Several  divines  of  note  interpret  the  whole  matter  in  a 
mystical  sense,  as  a  representation  of  any  churph  or 
churches  in  a  similar  state  to  each  case  there  described,  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  See  Cocceius,  the  very  learned 
Mede,  Dr.  H.  More,  and  Forbesius,  in  Pool's  SjTiopsis. 
Pool  himself  seems  to  think  that  many  things  confirm  this 
interpretation.  Among  others  are  mentioned,  from  More 
and  Mede,  that  there  were  many  other  churches  more 
celebrated  at  that  time  than  these  seven  mentioned,  and 
which  equally  needed  admonition  and  encouragements. 
These  seven,  therefore,  are  made  the  mystical  representa- 
tives of  the  whole. t 

3.  The  terra  angel  is  here  most  probably  to  be  taken  in 
a  COLLECTIVE  scusc,  as  the  term  beast  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter.     A  similar  mode  of  speaking  is  not  uncommon  in 

*  James  Owen's  Tutamen  Evangelicum,  p.  101,  12mo.  ed.,  1677. 
t  See  Calderwood's  Altare  Damascenum,  p.  99,  for  illustration  on 
this  point. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         61 

tlie  sacred  Scriptures  ;  for  instance,  by  the  two  witnesses, 
Rev.  xi,  3,  nobody  understands  two  precisely,  but  a  num- 
ber of  witnesses  ;  and  the  angel  mentioned,  Rev.  xiv,  6, 
&c.,  having  the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach,  evidently 
means  all  the  faithful  ministers  of  God's  Avord  in  general, 
as  then  going  forth  to  preach  the  everlasting  gospel  with 
more  than  ordinary  zeal  and  success.  And  compare  Dan. 
\dii,  3,  20,  where  a  ram  signifies  the  kings  of  Media  and 
Persia.  Again,  in  Daniel,  chap,  vii,  the  same  idiom  is  used. 
The  four  beasts  are  four  kings,  ver.  17.  The  fourth  beast 
is  the  fourth  kingdom,  ver.  27.  Now  this  implied  the 
Roman  power.  But  this  power,  for  some  hundreds  of 
years,  was  a  republic,  governed  not  by  one  person,  but  by 
a  number  of  senators.  Yet  these  are  spoken  of  as  one 
beast — one  king.  Every  person  has  observed  that  the 
Revelation  follows  the  idiom  of  the  prophecy  of  Daniel. 
This  is  the  case  here  in  using  the  term  angel,  that  is, 
messenger  or  minister,  collectively  for  a  number  of 
ministers,  as  Daniel  uses  the  term  beast,  or  king,  for  a 
number  of  governors  possessing  equal  power  at  the  same 
time.  And  what  further  confirms  this  interpretation,  is, 
that  the  angel  of  the  church  of  Smyrna  is  addressed  in  the 
plural,  chap,  ii,  10  ;  and  the  angel  of  the  church  of  Thya- 
tira  likewise  is  addressed  in  the  plural,  ver.  24,  "  Unto  the 
angel  of  the  church  of  Thyatira  write — unto  you  I  say," 
&c.  Durham  well  reasons,  that  as  there  were,  undoubt- 
edly, many  ministers  in  each  of  these  churches,  they  must 
be  spoken  of  either  under  the  similitude  of  the  candlesticks, 
that  is,  the  people ;  or  under  that  of  stars,  that  is,  the  angels 
or  ministers.  The  first  is  absurd :  it  follows,  therefore, 
that  the  angel,  the  star,  of  each  church,  means  the  ministers 
of  that  church  collectively .  This  I  think  is  the  true  sense 
of  the  place. 

Some  modem  commentators  who  decidedly  believe  the 
identity,  as  to  order,  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  still  think 
that  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  the  angel  means  that* 

*  Suppose  the  term  angel  to  mean  some  one  minister  presiding  over 
the  other  ministers.  In  the  first  place,  this  only  proves  the  fact ;  but 
gives  no  law  binding  all  churches  to  such  presidency.  And,  secondly, 
the  question  remams,  was  this  president  a  presbyter  or  bishop  1  Ad- 
mitting the  fact,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  the  chief  evidence  of  that 
time  will  prove  that  this  president  was  a  presbyter.  Presbyters  are 
said  to  ordain,  but  never  bishops.   1  Tim.  iv,  14.     Apostles  are  called 


62         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

presiding  elder  or  presbyter,  afterward  called  bishop,  by 
way  of  eminence,  as  primus  inter  pares^  the  first  among 
his  equals.  However,  though  this  would  not  alter  the 
state  of  the  question  at  issue,  I  still  think  this  opinion 

presbyters,  but  never  bishops ;  presbyters  are  said  to  join  in  council 
with  the  apostles,  but  never  bishops.  Acts  xv.  St.  John,  in  this  very 
book,  frequently  speaks  of  presbyters  or  elders,  but  he  never  once 
mentions  bishops.  Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian  speak  of  the  presi- 
dents in  the  churches  in  their  days  as  presbyters.  So  the  judicious 
Hooker  :  "  John  beheld  sitting  about  the  throne  of  God  in  heaven  four 
and  twenty  presbyters,  the  one-half,  fathers  of  the  Old,  the  others, 
of  the  New  Jerusalem.  In  which  respect  the  apostles  likewise  gave 
themselves  the  same  title,  albeit  that  name  were  not  proper,  but  common 
unto  them  v/ith  others.  For  of  presbyters,  some  were  greater,  some 
less  in  power,  and  that  by  our  Saviour's  own  appointment ;  the  greater, 
they  which  received  fulness  of  spiritual  power  ;  the  less,  they  to  whom 
less  was  granted.  The  apostles'  peculiar  charge  was  to  publish  the 
gospel  of  Christ  to  .^.ll  7iations,  and  to  deliver  them  his  ordinances  re- 
ceived by  immediate  revelation  from  himself.  Which  pre-eminence 
EXCEPTED,  to  ALL  Other  OFFICES  and  duties  incident  into  their  order,  it 
was  in  them  to  ordain  and  consecrate  whomsoever  they  thought  meet, 
EVEN  AS  our  Saviour  did  himself  seventy  others  of  his  own  disciples 
INFERIOR  presbyters,  whose  commission  to  preach  and  baptize  was  the 
same  which  the  apostles  had."  (Ecc.  Polity,  book  v,  sec.  77.)  Dr. 
Rainolds,  an  illustrious  defender  of  Protestantism,  thus  interprets  the 
passage  in  his  Conference  with  Hart :  "  Presbyters  were  constituted 
bishops  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  they  might  superintend  and  feed  the 
flock  :  and  that  this  might  be  more  effectually  accomplished  by  their 
united  counsel  and  consent,  they  were  accustonied  to  meet  together  in 
one  company  ;  and  to  elect  one  as  president  of  the  assembly  and  mode- 
rator of  the  proceedings  :  whom  Christ,  in  the  Revelation,  denominates 
the  angel  of  the  church,  and  to  whom  he  writes  those  things  which  he 
meant  him  to  signify  to  the  others.  And  this  is  the  person  to  whom 
the  fathers  aflerio'ard'm  the  primitive  church  denominated  the  bishop."* 
Now  this  is  all  perfectly  consistent  with  the  constitution  of  those 
Christian  churches  where  no  high  Church  episcopacy  is  found.  The 
superintendents  in  the  Lutheran  church,  and  among  the  Wesleyan 
Methodists,  have  every  whit  as  much  authority  as  is  here  supposed : 
yet  all  this  exists  in  fact  and  practice  where  all  the  ministers,  by  divine 
right,  are  equal.  Many  Protestant  writerst  grant  that  Peter  had  some 
sort  of  priority  among  the  apostles  ;  and  many  of  the  fathers  speak  of 
the  same  :  the  Papists,  therefore,  argue  that  the  pope,  as  Peter's  suc- 
cessor, has  universal  lordship  over  all  ministers  and  churches.  Their 
argument  is  quite  as  well  sustained  from  Scripture,  as  the  argument  of 
high  Churchmen  is  for  the  lordship  of  bishops.  Dr.  Barrow  grants  that 
Peter  might  have  such  a  primacy  "  as  the  primipilar  centurion  had  in 
the  Legion,  or  the  prince  of  the  senate  had  there,  in  the  Roman  state  ; 
at  least,  as  among  earls,  baronets,  &c.,  and  others,  co-ordinate  in  dc- 

*  Rainolds's  Conference,  cap.  iv,  in  Alt.  Dam.,  p.  47. 

t  Barrow  on  tlie  Supremacy,  supp.  ii,  sec.  v  and  vi,  p.  104,  4to.,  ed.  1080. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        63 

extremely  improbable,  because  the  icJiole  drift  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  Ave  shall  soon  see,  gives  a  more  perfect 
equality  to  the  ordinary  ministers  of  the  church,  than  this 
h^'pothesis  would  require.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore, 
extremely  illogical,  in  a  matter  so  plain,  to  infer  the  con- 
trary from  a  single  passage,  in  a  very  obscure  and  mystical 
book ;  and  that,  while  the  passage  itself  is  fairly  capable 
of  an  interpretation  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament,  as  is  shown  in  the  third  observation. 
At  any  rate,  no  valid  argument  can  be  drawn  from  so  dis- 
putable a  passage  in  favour  of  modern  episcopacy. 

To  conclude  this  section  : — Then  it  appears  that  there 
is  NO  POSITIVE  evidence  from  the  sacred  Scriptures  for 
these  high  Church  claims  for  bishops  as  apostles,  with 
authority  and  powers,  by  divine  right,  superior  to,  and 
incompatible  with  presbyters :  there  is  nothing  about  a  per- 
sonal succession ;  about  the  ordination  of  ministers,  (fee, 
belonging  exclusively  to  such  apostles,  by  voluntary 
humility  called  bishops.  There  is  nothing  in  our  Lord's 
commission,  not  a  word  :  the  plea  of  being  really  apostles, 
is  unsupported  by  the  New  Testament,  and  is  contradicted 
by  the  fathers  themselves ;  and  it  is,  moreover,  arrogant, 
unsustained  by  their  conduct,  and  consequently  ridiculous  ; 
the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus  fails  to  support  them,  and 
the  epistles  to  both  contradict  their  scheme  ;  the  angels 
of  the  Apocalypse  also  fail  them  ;  the  whole  system,  as  to 
Scriptural  authority,  is  built  on  a  sandy  foundation, 
and  is  buttressed  up  by  violent  assumptions,  strained  or 
false  analogies,  forced  interpretations,  and,  ultimately, 
comes  to  be  placed,  by  concessions  of  their  oicn,  upon  mere 
human  and  ecclesiastical  authority.  This  is  its  proper 
basis.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  they  have  a  perfect  right, 
if  they  think  it  the  best,  to  adopt  it,  to  advocate,  and  to 
recommend  it  to  others.  We  fully  concede  this  right. 
This  is  the  view  the  reformers  of  the  English  Church  took, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel. 

gree,  yet  one  hath  a  precedence  of  the  rest."*  Yet  he  maintains  the 
power  of  the  apostles  was  equal ;  their  rights  and  authority,  as  apostles, 
the  same.  Hence,  suppose  such  a  primacy  of  one  presbyter  as  presi- 
dent over  the  rest,  and  that  such  were  the  angels  of  the  churches  in 
the  Revelation,  yet  the  power  of  all  the  presbyters  would,  notwith- 
standing this,  be  equal ;  their  rights  and  authority  the  same. 

*  Barrow  on  the  Supremacy,  supp.  ii,  sec.  v  and  vi,  p.  49,  4to.,  ed.  1080. 


64         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

But,  tLen,  to  claim  a  divine  right  for  this  system,  and 
for  this  EXCLUSIVELY  of  all  others ;  and  that  so  as  to  de- 
clare that  no  ministry,  except  ordained  by  these  modern 
apostles,  is  valid ;  that  all  the  ordinances  of  all  the  Pro- 
testant churches  in  Europe  besides  the  Church  of  England 
are  vain,  and  loithout  the  promise  of  Christ:  this,  we  say, 
is  such  a  piece  of  blind  and  bigoted  arrogance,  as  to  de- 
serve severe  exposure  and  rebuke.  It  is  designed  to  pro- 
mote a  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  intolerance  :  may  such 
designs  perish  for  ever !  and  may  all  ministers  learn  that 
they  are  brethren ;  and  that  all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity,  are  one  holy,  catholic,  and  apos- 
tolical CHURCH,  built,  not  upon  the  traditions  of  men,  but 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone. 


SECTION  IV. 

THE   general  spirit  AND  SCOPE    OF  THE  GOSPEL  OPPOSED 
TO    THIS    HIGH    CHURCH    SCHEME. 

"  True  it  is,"  says  the  judicious  Hooker,  "  concerning 
the  word  of  God,  whether  it  be  by  misconstruction  of  the 
sense,  or  by  falsification  of  the  words,  wittingly  to  en- 
devor  that  any  thing  may  seem  divine  which  is  not,  or 
any  thing  not  seem  which  is,  were  plainly  to  abuse  and 
even  to  falsifie  divine  eiddence,  which  injurie  offered  but 
unto  men  is  most  worthily  counted  hainous.  Which  point 
I  wish  they  did  well  observe,  wdth  whom  nothing  is  more 
familiar  than  to  plead  in  these  causes,  the  law  of  God,  the 
word  of  the  Lord  ;  who,  notwithstanding  when  they  come 
to  alleage  what  word  and  what  law  they  meant,  their 
common  ordinary  practice  is,  to  quote  by-speeches  in 
some  historicall  narration  or  other,  and  to  urge  them  as 
if  they  were  written  in  most  exact  forme  of  law.  What  is 
to  add  to  the  law  of  God  if  this  bee  not  ?  When  that 
which  the  word  of  God  doth  but  deliver  historically,  we 
conster  icithout  any  icarrant  as  if  it  were  legally  meant, 
and  so  urge  it  further  than  wee  can  prove  that  it  was  in- 
tended, doe  wee  not  adds  to  the  lawes  of  God,  and  make 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        65 

them  in  number  seeme  more  than  they  are  ?  It  standeth 
us  upon  to  be  carefull  in  this  case.  For  the  sentence  of 
God  is  heavy  against  them,  that  wittingly  shall  presume 
thus  to  use  the  Scripture."*  These  words  of  this  cele- 
brated defender  of  the  Church  of  England  exactly  de- 
scribe, and  justly  censure,  the  conduct  of  these  high 
Church  excommunicators.  They  pretend  to  plead  "the 
law  of  God,"  or  divine  authority,  for  their  scheme  of  ex- 
communicating the  other  Protestant  churches  of  Europe, 
while,  "  notwithstanding,  when  they  come  to  alleage  what 
word  and  what  law  they  meant,  their  common  ordinary 
practice  is,  to  quote  by-speeches  in  some  historical  narra- 
tion or  other,  and  to  urge  them  as  if  they  were  written  in 
most  exact  form  of  law."  So,  if  the  subject  of  the  alms 
of  the  church  be  historically  treated,  and  the  Greek  term 
for  messengers  be  used,  (a  term  which  was  also  applied 
to  those  extraordinary  ministers,  by  it  denominated 
apostles,)  this  is  immediately  caught  at  in  order  to  create 
a  second  order  of  apostles,  to  whom  modern  bishops  are  to 
be  the  exclusive  successors.  Again,  if  St.  Paul  wishes 
Timothy  to  abide  at  Ephesus  for  a  special  purpose,  named 
in  the  request,  this  must  make  him  bishop  of  Ephesus. 
St.  Luke  says,  in  historical  narration,  (Acts  xxi,  17,  18,) 
"  And  when  w^e  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  the  brethren  re- 
ceived us  gladly,  and  the  day  following  Paul  went  in  with 
us  unto  James  ;  and  all  the  elders  were  present."  Bishop 
Taylor  makes  this  hy-speech,  or  historical  narration,  for- 
mally the  "  second  evidence  of  Scripture,"  that  St.  James 
was  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  "  Why  (went  they  in)  unto 
James  ?"  he  asks,  "  why  not  rather  into  the  presbytery, 
or  college  of  elders,  if  James  did  not  eminere,  were  not 
the  Tj-yovfievog,  the  praepositus,  or  bishop  of  them  all  ?"t 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  b.  iii,  sec.  5. 

t  Episcop.  Ass.,  p.  71.  And  Mr.  Sinclair,  in  his  "Vindication  of 
Episcopal  or  Apostolical  Succession,"  makes  a  mighty  parade  of  this 
nonsensical  argument,  pp.  24-27.  But  he  destroys  it  utterly  hy  betray- 
ing its  foolishness  in  the  two  following  particulars:  1.  That  by  it  an 
apostle  is  elevated  to  be  a  bishop  of  a  single  city  !  !  2.  That  con- 
sistently with  this,  he  actually  has  the  hardihood  and  infatuation  to 
make  James,  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  preside  over  the  apostles 
themselves  in  the  council  at  Jerusalem.  Fine  work  !  a  bishop  lording 
it  over  the  apostles  !  !  These  absurdities  are  genuine  results  of  the 
argument.     He  quotes,  as  historic  evidence  for  it,  an  acknowledged 


66         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

To  be  sure,  the  weaiy  travellers  must  go  in  somewhere  ; 
but  does  the  simple  fact  of  their  calling  at  a  certain  bro- 
ther's house,  proA^e  that  he  was  a  bishop  of  the  place? 
Besides,  how  absurd  to  degrade  an  apostle  into  a  bishop — • 
a  universal  commission  into  a  local  one,  to  a  single  city ! 
"  As  if  the  king  should  become  mayor  of  London ;  as  ii 
the  bishop  of  London  should  be  vicar  of  Pancras  !"*  Well, 
let  us  read  verses  7  and  8  of  this  very  chapter :  "  And 
when  we  had  finished  our  course  from  Tyre,  we  came  to 
Ptolemais,  and  saluted  the  brethren,  and  abode  with  them 
one  day.  And  the  next  day  we  that  were  of  Paul's  com- 
pany departed,  and  came  unto  Cesarea :  and  we  entered 
into  the  house  of  Philip  the  evangelist,  which  was  one  of 
the  seven,  and  abode  \vith  him."  Here,  then,  we  make 
Pliilip,  the  evangelist,  who  was  one  of  the  seven  deacons, 
bishop  of  Cesarea.  What  solemn  trifling  is  all  this ! 
Nothing  is  more  calculated  to  destroy  the  authority  of 
Scripture  itself  than  this  mode  of  interpretation.  The 
champions  of  Popery  excel  in  it.  They  may  do  it  con- 
sistently, because  they  have  supreme  authority  to  make 
the  Scriptures  say  what  they  please.  They  often  labour 
to  prove  the  uncertainty  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures, 
in  order  to  increase  their  priestly  authority.  Their  people 
have  bound  themselves  to  believe  them,  by  giving  up  the 
right  of  private  judgment.  Thus  the  monstrous  errors  of 
Popery  are  received,  on  what  they  call  the  authority  of  the 
church,  (that  is,  the  dicta  of  their  priests,)  as  the  truths  of 
God's  holy  word.  Such  is  the  method  of  proof  used  by 
these  high  Church  writers,  quoting  "  by-speeches  in  some 
historical  narration,  and  urging  them  as  if  they  were  written 
in  most  exact  form  of  law,"  in  order  to  prove  the  divine 
right  of  their  scheme,  and  that  to  the  exclusion  of  all  from 
the  pale  of  the  Christian  church  who  do  not  conform  to  it. 
"  What  is  to  add  to  the  law  of  God,  if  this  be  not  ?  When 
that  which  the  word  of  God  doth  but  deliver  historically, 
we  conster  without  any  warrant  as  if  it  were  legally  meant, 
and  so  urge  it  further  than  we  can  prove  that  it  was  in- 

interpolation  of  Ignatius  ;  and  the  work  of  Hegisippus,  which  Dupin,  a 
competent  authority,  declares  is  little  better  than  a  fable.  The  rest 
of  his  authorities  may  be  considered  generally  as  retailers  of  this  ori- 
ginal fable  and  absurd  statement. 

*  Barrow  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  supp.  4. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         67 

tended,  do  we  not  adde  to  the  laws  of  God,  and  make  them 
in  number  seeme  more  than  they  are  ?  It  standeth  ns  upon 
to  be  careful  in  this  case.  For  the  sentence  of  God  is 
heavy  against  them,  that  wittingly  shall  presume  thus  to 
use  the  Scripture."  Such  a  procedure  can  supply  no 
proofs ;  it  leads  to  much  perversion  of  the  public  mind ; 
and  is  dangerous  in  its  consequences  to  the  authors  them- 
selves, and  to  the  cause  of  religion  in  the  world. 

It  is  a  point  which  the  reader  cannot  too  carefully  mark, 
that  the  proof — proof  clear,  plain,  and  strong,  lies  upon 
these  advocates  to  produce.  In  strictness,  there  needs 
NONE  against  this  scheme :  if  their  proofs  fail  to  support 
it,  it  FALLS  OF  ITSELF.  Their  proofs  are  such  as  the  judi- 
cious Hooker  has  above  described.  They  are,  in  truth, 
no  proofs.  The  system,  therefore,  falls  by  its  own  weight. 
This  is  enough  to  a  serious,  reflecting  mind.  Where  there 
is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression.  Nay,  more,  the  very 
countenancing  of  individuals  in  an  attempt  to  "  make  that 
seeme  divine  which  is  not,  were  plainly  to  abuse  and  even 
to  FALSIFY  DIVINE  EVIDENCE,  which  injury  offered  but  unto 
men  is  most  w^orthily  counted  hainous."  Let  every  per- 
son, therefore,  take  care  how  he  becomes  a  partaker  in  the 
proceedings  of  these  men. 

We  shall,  however,  expose  these  high  pretensions  from 
the  Scriptures  themselves.  In  this  section  we  intend  to 
point  out  some  of  those  simple  and  catholic  principles  laid 
down  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  contrast  to  the  narrow,  bigoted,  exclusive,  and  intolerant 
character  of  this  pseudo-succession  scheme. 

One  characteristic  of  the  New  Covenant  is,  the  put- 
ting aside  of  "  carnal  ordinances,"  and  "  the  traditions 
of  men  ;"  and  the  placing  of  our  holy  religion  upon  the 
simplest  and  broadest  basis  ;  requiring  nothing  as  abso- 
lltely  essential  to  it,  but  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
%vorking  by  love,  purifying  the  heart,  and  fulfilling  the  law. 
Even  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  though  positively 
obligatory  where  they  can  be  had,  are  not  absolutely 
essential  to  the  possession  of  the  blessings  of  the  gospel. 
Abraham  was  justified  before  he  was  circumcised.  Hear 
the  apostle,  in  Rom.  iv,  9-12,  "  Cometh  this  blessedness  then 
upon  the  circumcision  only,  or  upon  the  uncircumcision 
also  1  for  we  say  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for 


68         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

righteousness.  How  was  it  then  reckoned'?  when  he  was 
in  circumcision,  or  in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumci- 
sion, but  in  uncircumcision.  And  he  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised :  that  he  might  be  the 
father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circum- 
cised ;  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them  also  : 
and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the 
circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that 
faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he  had  being  yet  un- 
circumcised." Cornelius  was  justified  before  he  was 
baptized :  Acts  x,  44-47,  "  While  Peter  yet  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the 
word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed  were 
astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on 
the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  For  they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues,  and 
magnify  God.  Then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?"  Every  one  that 
believes  the  gospel  is  hound  by  its  positive  autliority  to  be 
baptized,  and  to  receive  the  Lord's  supper ;  but  the  Scrip- 
tures never  declare  that  any  man  shall  be  damned  for  the 
lack  of  either  ;  but  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
A  wilful,  presumptuous  neglect  of  these  positive  institu- 
tions, is  inconsistent  with  Christian  character  ;  but  if  igno- 
rance, the  prejudices  of  education,  or  lack  of  opportunity, 
occasions  any  individual  who  believes  in  Christ,  as  above 
described,  to  be  found  without  them,  he  may  and  will  be 
saved.  He  that  saith  otherwise,  let  him  learn  what  this 
meaneth,  "  I  will  have  mercy,"  saith  the  Lord,  "  and  not 
sacrifice,"  Matt,  xii,  7.  Even  circumcision,  the  want  of 
which  was  threatened  from  heaven  with  solemn  excision, 
or  cutting  off  from  Lsrael,  was  relaxed  when  circumstances 
required  it.     See  Joshua  v,  2-9. 

The  same  observation  bears  directly  upon  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  great  ritual 
exactness  was  enjoined  in  setting  them  apart  to  the  service 
of  the  altar.  The  priesthood  was  confined  to  one  family. 
Denunciations  of  death  were  proclaimed  against  any  who 
approached  unto  God  contrary  to  his  own  positive  injunc- 
tions.    These  things  were  all  marvellously  calculated  to. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        6Q 

point  out  in  shadow  the  one  priestlwod,  and  one  offering 
of  Christ,  showing  it  to  be  the  divine  way  unto  the  Father, 
and  EXCLUDING  ALL  OTHER  WAYS.  But,  whcu  He  came, 
all  the  ritual  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  all  the  offer- 
ings, as  offerings  for  sins ;  all  the  denunciations  as  to  the 
ministry,  the  confining  of  it  by  carnal  ordinances  to  one 
family,  and  to  personal  succession,  for  ever  passed  away. 
There  is  not  a  word  of  any  of  these  things  in  the  New 
Testament ;  but  quite  the  contrary.  With  the  exception 
of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  there  is  not  a  single  rite 
or  ceremony  enjoined  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament. 
As  to  offerings,  as  offerings  for  sin,  they  are  put  away  for 
ever,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ :  thus  testifies  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  the  apostle  in  Heb.  x,  11-14,  "  And  every  priest 
standeth  daily  ministering  and  offering  oftentimes  the  same 
sacrifices,  which  can  never  take  away  sins  :  but  this  man, 
after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  God ;  from  henceforth  expecting  till 
his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool.  For  hy  one  offering  he 
hath  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified."  Hence 
the  Popish  priests,  pretending  in  their  masses  to  offer  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  an  offering  for  sin,  destroy 
the  perfection  of  the  atonement  itself.  They  bring  it 
down  to  that  imperfection  which  belonged  to  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats,  on  which  the  apostle  thus  argues,  Heb. 
X,  1-4  :  "  For  the  law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to 
come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  can  never 
with  those  sacrifices  which  they  offered  year  by  year  con- 
tinually make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect.  For  then 
would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be  offered?  because  that 
the  worshippers  once  purged  should  have  had  no  more 
conscience  of  sins.  "But  in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a 
remembrance  again  made  of  sins  every  year.  For  it  is 
not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should 
take  away  sins."  Popery  awfully  corrupts  Christianity 
itself  by  striking  at  its  very  foundation.  It  takes  avv^ay 
Christ  from  Christianity,  and  conducts  us  back  to 
Judaism.  This  is  done  to  lay  the  foundation  for  priestly 
tyranny,  that  the  priests,  keeping  the  offerings  for  sin,  and 
the  power  of  absolution,  in  their  own  hands,  may  bind  the 
tortured  conscience  to  their  own  will,  and  play  the  direst 
tyranny  over  the  destinies  of  mankind.    Accursed  system ! 


70         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

The  blood  of  a  host  of  martyrs  has  been  shed  in  testimony 
against  it.  May  Protestants  never  become  blind  to  its 
blasphemy  and  iniquity  !  As  to  the  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
our  adorable  Redeemer,  and  his  servants  the  apostles, 
proceed  upon  the  same  principles  as  those  applied  to 
sacrifice  and  offerings  for  sin.  As  offerings  for  sin  have 
ceased  to  be  offered  for  ever,  so  there  is  jio  priest  in  the 
gospel  ministry.  Our  Redeemer  never  repeats  his  offering. 
He  appears  as  our  High  Priest,  in  the  presence  of  God, 
to  make  intercession  for  us  ;  but  his  act  of  offering  himself 
for  us  is  NEVER  to  be  repeated.  "  After  he  had  offered 
one  sacrifice  for  sin,  he  for  ever  sat  down  on  the  right 
hand  of  God,  from  henceforth  expecting  till  his  enemies  be 
made  his  footstool ;  for  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected 
for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified,"  Heb.  x,  12-14.  He  is 
the  ONLY  Priest  in  the  New  Covenant.  No  gospel  minister 
is  a  priest.*  It  is  very  remarkable,  that  in  the  constitution 
of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  in  the  government  of  the 
Christian  church,  our  Lord  seems  studiously  to  have  avoided 
introducing  any  thing  like  the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  and  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  and  ritual.  The  conduct  of  Papists 
and  high  Churchmen  is  the  very  opposite  of  this.  Their 
aim  is  to  Judaize  Christianity.  Our  Lord  proceeded 
silently  in  many  things,  that  the  change  might  not  become 
a  stumbling  to  the  Jews.  But,  while  the  priesthood  of 
Aaron  was  left  to  perish,  as  being  superseded  by  His 
priesthood  who  is  a  Priest  for  ever  according  to  the  order 
of  Melchizedec,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  command- 
ment, but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life,  the  service 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue  was  generally  followed  in  model- 
ling the  ministry  and  government  of  the  Christian  church. 
See  this  abundantly  proved  and  exemplified  by  the  learned 
Vitringa,  in  his  work  on  the  ancient  synagogue,  "  De 
Synagoga  VetereJ'     It  may  be  enough  to  the  purpose  of 

*  "  In  truth,  the  word  presbyter  doth  seem  more  fit,  and  in  propriety 
of  speech  more  agreeable  than  priest,  with  the  drift  of  the  whole  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Holy  Ghost,  throughout  the  body  of  the  New 
Testament,  making  so  much  mention  of  them,  (presbyters,)  doth  not 
anywhere  call  them  priests." — Hooker,  Eccles.  Polity,  book  v,  sec.  78. 
The  high  Church  bishops  who  revised  the  Prayer-book  in  the  time  of 
Charles  II.  are  said  to  have  substituted  friest  five  or  six  times,  where 
the  reformers  had  simply  used  the  word  minister.  The  New  Testament 
did  not  teach  them  this. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        71 

our  present  argument  to  remark,  that  no  office  or  authority- 
there  was  confined  to  personal  succession,  and  that  every 
presbyter,  appointed  or  ordained  to  the  government  and 
service  of  the  synagogue,  had  the  power  of  ordaining 
others  in  his  place,  though  the  exercise  of  this  power  was, 
for  the  sake  of  order,  regulated  by  rules  formed  by  the 
synagogue  itself.  Thus  speaks  Maimonides,  the  most 
eminent  of  Jewish  writers  on  such  subjects  :  "  In  ancient 
times,"  (that  is,  the  times  before  Hillel  the  elder,  who  died 
about  ten  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ,)  "  every  one  who 
was  ordained  himself,  ordained  his  scholars.  But  the  wise 
men,  in  order  to  show  particular  reverence  for  Hillel  the 
elder,  made  a  rule  that  no  one  should  be  ordained  without 
the  permission  of  the  president,  neither  should  the  presi- 
dent himself  ordain  any  one  without  the  presence  of  the 
father  of  the  sanhedrim,  nor  the  father  without  the  pre- 
sence of  the  president.  But,  as  to  other  members  of  the 
sanhedrim,  any  one  might  ordain,  (having  obtained  permis- 
sion of  the  president,)  by  joining  with  himself  two  others  ; 
for  ordination  cannot  regularly  be  performed  except  three 
join  in  the  ordination."*  In  the  apostles'  days,  all  acts 
of  importance  and  authority  were  done  by  gospel  ministers 
(in  conjunction  with  the  apostles)  under  the  denomination 
of  elders,  that  is,  presbyters,  and  seldom  under  the  deno- 
mination of  bishops.  It  may  suffice  to  instance  only  one, 
viz.,  that  of  oRDAixiNG  other  ministers  :  this  was  done 
expressly  by  the  assembly  of  presbyters,  and  not  a  word 
about  bishops  in  the  matter.  1  Tim.  iv,  14.  Now  here  is 
nothing  in  all  these  proceedings  binding  the  church  to  an 
order  of  bishops  as  the 'sole  ordainers  of  ministers,  and 
governors  of  ministers  and  people,  to  be  traced  by  an  unin- 
terrupted succession  of  episcopal  ordinations,  and  without 
whose  ordinations  no  ministry,  nor  ordinance,  nor  sacra- 
ment, has  the  promise  of  Christ  to  the  end  of  the  world ! 
It  may  be  Judaism,  it  may  be  Popery,  but  it  is  not  Chris- 
tianity. 

But,  further,  we  have  directions  of  quite  a  different  na- 
ture and  character  from  this  scheme  of  succession,  laid 
down  as  to  gospel  ministers  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles. 
These  are  holiness  of  life,  the  call  of  God,  and  soundness 
of  doctrine. 

*  V.  Selden  De  Syned.,  lib.  ii,  c.  7,  p.  173,  4to.    Amstel.,  1679. 


72  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

We  say  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  require  holiness  of 
life  in  a  gospel  minister.  Our  Lord's  requisition  is,  that 
he  must  enter  the  fold  by  himself  as  the  door.  This 
principally  refers  to  his  entering  the  office  of  the  ministry. 
Now  will  the  great  Shepherd  of  souls  himself  open  the 
door  of  the  sheepfold  to  wolves,  even  though  they  have 
sheep's  clothing  ?  The  supposition  is  monstrous,  and  can 
never  enter  the  mind  which  is  imbued  with  just  views  of 
Christianity.  Again,  the  greater  always  includes  the  less. 
The  office  of  a  minister  of  Christ  is  a  greater  matter  than 
that  of  a  private  member  of  Christ's  mystical  body.  No 
wicked  man  is  a  true  member  of  Christ's  mystical  body  : 
no  wicked  man,  therefore,  is  a  true  member  of  Christ.  A 
true  minister  of  Christ,  then,  always  implies  that  the  per- 
son is  first  a  real  Christian.  No  man  is  a  gospel  minister 
who  is  not.  Even  deacons,  an  inferior  office,  not  belong- 
ing to  the  gospel  ministry  at  all,  in  their  Scriptural  institu- 
tion, are  to  be  men  ^'- full  of  faith  and  the  Holy  Ghost;'''' 
how  much  more,  then,  ministers  of  the  gospel !  When 
Paul  speaks  of  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  they  who 
have  received  it  are  such  as  have  first  been  reconciled 
themselves  : — "  And  all  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  recon- 
ciled us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us 
the  ministry  of  reconciliation,"  2  Cor.  v,  18.  Some  of  the 
verses  of  the  following  chapter  are  worthy  of  a  place  here  : 
2  Cor.  vi,  3-7,  "  Giving  no  offence  in  any  thing,  that  the 
ministry  be  not  blamed  :  but  in  all  things  approving  our- 
selves as  the  ministers  of  God,  in  much  patience,  in  afflic- 
tions, in  necessities,  in  distresses.  In  stripes,  in  imprison- 
ments, in  tumults,  in  labours,  in  watchings,  in  fastings  ;  by 
pureness,  by  knowledge,  by  long-suffering,  by  kindness,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  by  love  unfeigned,  by  the  word  of  truth, 
by  the  power  of  God,  by  the  armour  of  righteousness  on 
the  right  hand  and  on  the  left."  But  the  matter  is  treated 
professedly  in  other  places,  as  in  Titus  i,  5-9  :  "  For  this 
cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order 
the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  [presbyters] 
in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee  :  if  any  be  blame- 
less, the  husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children, 
not  accused  of  riot,  or  unruly.  For  a  bishop  must  be 
hlameless,  as  the  steward  of  God  ;  not  self-willed,  not  soon 
angry,  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  given  to  filthy 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         73 

lucre  ;  but  a  lover  of  hospitality,  a  lover  of  good  men, 
^SOBER,  JUST,  HOLY,  temperate ;  holding  fast  the  faithful 
word  as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  may  be  able  by  sound 
doctrine  both  to  exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayers." 

Again,  every  true  minister  of  the  gospel  must  have  the 
call  of  God.  This  cannot  be  better  expressed  than  in  the 
language  of  the  ordination  service  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, which  requires  that  every  man  coming  to  be  ordain- 
ed should  be  able  solemnly  to  declare,  that  he  trusts  he  is 
"  inwardly  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  take  upon  him  this 
office"  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  This  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  the  call  of  the  church.  It  is  distinct  from  it, 
and  precedes  it.  It  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  the  first 
matter  in  the  special  formation  and  desig-nation  of  a  minis- 
ter. Without  it  no  man  ought  to  enter  the  ministry :  God 
did  not  send  him.  This  rule  attended  to,  the  church 
would  have  no  unconverted  ministers,  as  God  calls  none 
who  are  not  first  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son.  "  And  this,"  says  the  holy  martyr,  Bilney,  "  is  the 
root  of  all  mischief  in  the  church,  that  they"  (the  ministers 
of  the  gospel  as  then  generally  found  in  the  church)  "  are 
not  sent  inwardly  of  God.  Without  this  inward  calling,  it 
helpeth  nothing  before  God,  to  be  a  hundred  times  elect 
and  consecrate  by  a  thousand  bulls,  either  by  pope,  king, 
or  emperor."  See  his  letter  to  Tonstal,  bishop  of  London. 
The  following,  among  other  scriptures,  prove  this  divine 
call :  "  Then  saith  he  unto  his  disciples.  The  harvest  truly 
is  plenteous,  but  the  labourers  are  few  ;  pray  ye,  therefore, 
the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he  will  send  forth  labourers 
into  his  harvest,"  Matt,  ix,  37,  38. — "  And  the  Lord  said, 
Who  then  is  that  faithful  and  wise  steward,  whom  his  lord 
shall  make  ruler  over  his  household,  to  give  them  their  por- 
tion of  meat  in  due  season?"  Luke  xii,  42. — "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  entereth  not  by  the  door 
into  the  sheepfold,  but  climbeth  up  some  other  way,  the 
same  is  a  thief  and  a  robber." — "  I  am  the  door,"  John  x, 
verses  1  and  9. — "  But  unto  every  one  of  us  is  given  grace 
according  to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ.  Where- 
fore he  saith,  When  he  ascendeth  up  on  high,  he  led  cap- 
tivity captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men.  (Now  that  he  as- 
cended, what  is  it  but  that  he  also  descended  first  into  the 
lower  parts  of  the  earth  ?     He  that  descended  is  the  same 

4 


74         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

also  that  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  he  might 
fill  all  things.)  And  he  gave  some,  apostles  ;  and  some, 
prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers  ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,  till  we 
all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of 
the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ."  Eph.  iv,  7-13. 

Soundness  of  doctrine  is  absolutely  required.  The 
nature  of  the  case  might  have  led  men  to  see  this :  but 
human  nature  is  blind.  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God :  for  they  are  foolishness 
unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned,"  1  Cor.  ii,  14.  However,  the  word 
of  God  is  decisive  upon  the  point.  The  Judaizing  teachers, 
that  had  perverted  the  Galatians,  did  not  altogether  reject 
Christ ;  but  by  preaching  the  law  of  Moses,  circumcision, 
&c.,  as  necessary  to  salvation,  they  subverted  the  gospel; 
for  the  necessary  consequence  was  that  Christ  was  not  a 
sufficient  Saviour.  Hear  the  apostle,  Gal.  v,  1-4,  "  Stand 
fast  therefore  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us 
free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage. 
Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  circumcised, 
Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify  again  to 
every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law.  Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you, 
whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law ;  ye  are  fallen 
from  grace."  Now  St.  Paul  treats  this  as  preaching  an- 
other gospel,  chap,  i,  6.  He  then  solemnly  declares,  Gal. 
i,  8,  9,  "  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have  preach- 
ed unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  As  we  said  before,  so 
say  I  now  again,  if  any  man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto 
you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  he  accursed^''  that  is, 
excommunicated  for  false  doctrine.  The  epistles  of  the 
apostles  abound  with  passages  warning  against  teachers  of 
false  doctrines.  The  apostles'  conduct,  and  the  conduct  of 
our  high  Church  divines,  are  a  perfect  contrast  here.  The 
apostles  determine  the  truth  of  the  ministry  from  the  truth 
of  their  doctrine,  and  never,  in  treating  this  point,  drop  a 
syllable  about  their  episcopal  ordination,  or  their  being  in 
the  succession ;  our  high  Church  divines  determine  the  truth 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         75 

of  the  doctrine  from  episcopal  ordinations  and  personal 
SUCCESSION,  at  least  so  far  as  to  deny  that  any  can  be  true 
ministers,  true  teachers,  without  these,  however  holy 
their  lives,  Scriptural  their  doctrine,  and  successful  their 
ministry ;  and  declare  that  the  ministry  of  all  who  have 
this  episcopal  ordination  and  personal  succession  is  a 
valid  ministry,  and  that  all  their  ministerial  acts  have  di- 
vine AUTHORITY,  though  they  personally  be  heretics, 
SiMONisTS,  and  the  most  wicked  of  mankind  ! 

But  we  have  yet  matter  to  adduce  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment more  fatal  to  this  high  Church  scheme  than  all  that 
has  hitherto  been  brought  forward.  The  New  Testament 
requires  us  to  FORSAKE  all  who  pretend  to  be  ministers 
of  the  word,  but  who  are  plainly  unholy,  and  who  teach 
DOCTRINES  CONTRARY  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  :  so 
our  Lord,  Matt,  vii,  15-20,  "  Beware  of  false  prophets, 
which  come  to  you  in  sheep's  clothing,  but  inwardly  they 
are  ravening  wolves.  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their 
fruits.  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  this- 
tles ?  Even  so  every  good  tree  bringeth  forth  good  fruit ; 
but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit.  A  good  tree 
cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree 
bring  forth  good  fruit.  Every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth 
good  fruit  is  hewn  down,  and  cast  into  the  fire.  Where- 
fore BY  their  fruits  yc  shall  know  them."  "  False 
prophets,"  says  Grotius,  "  not  as  to  their  mission,  or  calling, 
but  as  to  their  false,  destructive  doctrine^  "  Who  are 
false  prophets,  hut  false  preachers  ?  Who  are  false  apostles, 
except  those  who  preach  an  adulterated  gospel  V  says 
Tertullian,  De  Praescript,  c.  4.  They  had  sheep's  clothings 
but  inwardly  were  ravening  wolves.  The  disciples  of 
Christ  were  to  judge  of  them,  not  hy  ordination  or  succes- 
sion, but  by  their  fruits.  According  to  this  rule  they 
were  to  be  on  their  guard  against  them  ;  not  to  obey  them, 
nor  follow  them.  "  Let  them  alone,"  that  is,  "  leave 
them,"  as  the  word  often  signifies  :  "  they  be  blind  leaders 
of  the  blind,  and  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall 
into  the  ditch,"  Matt,  xv,  14.  In  John  x,  5,  he  says  of 
his  sheep,  that  "a  stranger  will  they  not  follow,  but 
will  flee  from  him  ;  for  they  know  not  the  voice  of  a 
stranger."  This  at  once  establishes  the  right  and  duty  of 
forsaking  wicked  and  heretical  ministers.     St.  Paul  speaks 


76  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

of  the  false  teachers,  in  the  Corinthian  churches,  "  as  false 
apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming  themselves  into 
the  apostles  of  Christ,"  2  Cor.  xi,  13,  He  does  not  hesitate 
to  pronounce  such  the  "  ministers  of  Satan."  And  what 
are  the  proofs  ?  iheiv  false  ordination  ?  that  they  were  not 
in  the  succession  ?  Nay,  the  very  reverse,  for  he  speaks  of 
them  as  heing  formally  "  the  ministers  of  Christ,"  verse  23. 
But  they  "  handled  the  word  of  God  deceitfully  y^  chap,  iv, 
verse  2  :  "  corrupted  the  ivord  of  God"  chap,  ii,  verse  17  : 
"  denied  the  resurrection,"  &c.,  1  Cor.  xv.  In  his  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  he  declares  that  "  such  teachers  are  to 
be  held  accursed  by  us."  "  I  would,"  says  he,  "  that  they 
were  even  cut  off  which  trouble  you,"  chap,  v,  12.  So, 
when  writing  to  Timothy,  1  Tim.  vi,  3-5,  "  If  any  man 
TEACH  otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words, 
even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doc- 
trine which  is  according  to  godliness ;  he  is  proud, 
knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of 
words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings,  evil  surmis- 
ings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  des- 
titute of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness  :  from 
such  WITHDRAW  thysclf."  In  the  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians,  the  description  of  antichrist,  in  the  second 
chapter,  shows  that  he  would  be  found  in  the  temple  of  God, 
that  is,  would  be  imbodied  in  a.  false  ministry.  See  Bishop 
Jewel  on  this  epistle  for  abundant  proof  of  this  point. 
They  are,  therefore,  warned  against  him,  and  are  to  stand 
fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  they  had  been  taught  by 
the  apostle,  whether  by  word  or  epistle,  verse  15.  He 
then  says,  "  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves 
from  every  brother  that  loalketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the 
tradition  which  he  received  from  us."  This  may  princi- 
pally refer  to  private  Christians.  But  then  the  argument 
applies  with  increased  force  to  ministers,  in  proportion  to 
their  obligations  to  holiness  and  truth,  and  to  the  pernicious 
effects  of  their  conduct  when  standing  opposed  to  truth  and 
godliness.  Yet  I  am  by  no  means  satisfied  that  the  apos- 
tle did  not  mean  directly  to  refer  to  ministers  as  well  as 
to  private  members.  He  certainly  speaks  of  his  oion  con- 
duct, and  that  of  his  felloio-labourers,  Silvanus  and  Timo- 
theus,  as  being  particularly  suited  to  bear  on  the  case  he 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         77 

wished  to  reprove  :  but  it  bore  on  that  case  most  directly 
as  they  loere  ministers  ;  therefore,  it  is  probable,  that  it  was 
to  some  who  were  ministers  that  he  designed  his  observa- 
tions to  apply.  Now  he  solemnly  commands,  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  they  avithdraw  themselves 
from  every  such  brother,  from  every  such  minister,  who 
walked  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  received  from 
the  apostles.  So  in  Romans  xvi,  17,  18,  "  Now  I  beseech 
you,  brethren,  mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  of- 
fences contrary  to  the  doctrixe  which  ye  have  learned  ; 
and  AVOID  them.  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;  but  their  own  belly;  and  by  good 
words  and  fair  speeches  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple." 
He  tells  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  in  Acts  xx,  29,  30, — 
"  For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departing  shall  grievous 
WOLVES  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock.  Also 
of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse 
things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after  them."  To  suppose 
the  fiock  bound  by  the  chief  Shepherd  to  follow  ravening 
wolves,  would  be  monstrous.  Our  Lord  says  his  sheep 
"  will  NOT  follow"  them,  but  "  will  flee  from  them  ;"  at 
once  declaring  Kn^  justifying  the  fact. 

St.  John  says,  First  Epistle  iv,  1,  "  Beloved,  believe  not 
every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  vv^hether  they  are  of  God : 
because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world." 
And  how  are  we  to  try  the  spirits  ?  He  tells  us  else- 
where :  not  by  episcopal  ordinations,  and  personal  succes- 
sion, but  by  their  doctrine.  This  is  the  way  antichrist 
is  to  be  discovered.  In  his  Second  Epistle  he  is  very  ex- 
press on  the  subject,  7-11,  "For  many  deceivers  are 
entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  anti- 
christ. Look  to  yourselves,  that  we  lose  not  those  things 
which  we  have  wrought,  but  that  we  receive  a  full  reward. 
Whosoever  transgresseth,  and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  hath  not  God.  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  there 
come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive 
him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed  :  for 
he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  partaker  of  his  evil 
deeds."  Jude's  awful  descriptions  and  warnings  princi- 
pally regarded  wicked  ministers.     And    nothing    can  be 


78         OX  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

plainer  than  that  the  design  of  his  epistle  is  to  lead  all  tnie 
Christians  to  avoid  such  corrupters  of  the  truth.  The 
seven  churches  in  the  Revelation  have  the  same  direc- 
tions. The  church  of  Ephesus  is  commended  for  trying 
those  who  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not.  So  the 
church  of  Pergamos  has  admonitions  about  the  Balaamites 
and  Nicolaitanes.  Their  leaders  were  evidently  ministers 
or  teachers,  and  were  to  be  rejected  at  the  peril  of  God's 
judgments  :  "  Repent,  or  else  I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly, 
and  will  fight  against  them  with  the  sword  of  my  mouth," 
Rev.  ii,  16.  The  church  at  Thyatira  is  rebuked  for  "  suf- 
fering that  woman,  Jezebel,  which  calleth  herself  a  pro- 
phetess, to  TEACH  and  seduce  my  servants  to  commit  forni- 
cation," &c.,  verse  20.  The  same  strain  runs  through  the 
•whole.  Now  everywhere  truth  of  doctrine,  and  holiness 
of  life,  is  the  rule  :  and  everywhere  teachers,  who  are  bad 
MEiv  and  perverters  of  the  truth,  whatever  might  be 
their  other  pretensions,  are  to  be  forsaken.  To  con- 
clude these  divine  authorities  :  many  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics, before  the  Reformation,  and  the  reformers  generally, 
considered  Rome  to  be  the  Babylon  mentioned  in  the 
Revelation.  This  "  Mystery,  Babylon  the  great,  the 
mother  of  harlots,  and  abominations  of  the  earth,  who 
reigned  OA^er  the  kings  of  the  earth,"  has  always  pretended 
to  be  before  all  others  in  episcopal  ordinatioiis,  personal 
succession,  &c.  Yet,  what  saith  the  Spirit  to  the  churches  ? 
He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear,  Rev.  xviii,  1-4, 
"  And  after  these  things  I  saw  another  angel  come  down 
from  heaven,  having  great  power  ;  and  the  earth  was 
lightened  with  his  glory.  And  he  cried  mightily  with  a 
strong  voice,  saying,  Babylon  the  great  is  fallen,  is  fallen, 
and  has  become  the  habitation  of  devils,  and  the  hold  of 
every  foul  spirit,  and  a  cage  of  every  unclean  and  hateful 
bird.  For  all  nations  have  drunk  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath 
of  her  fornication,  and  the  kings  of  the  earth  have  com- 
mitted fornication  with  her,  and  the  merchants  of  the  earth 
are  waxed  rich  through  the  abundance  of  her  delicacies. 
And  I  heard  another  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  Come  out 
OF  her,  my  people,  that  ye  he  not  partakers  of  her  sins, 
and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues." 

Here    is    surely  enough  to    confound  for  ever  such  a 
scheme  as  we  have  seen  exhibited  by  such  men  as  Bishop 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  79 

Taylor,  Dr.  Hicks,  Dr.  Hook,  &c.  The  words  of  Dr. 
Barrow,  as  to  the  duty  of  rejecting  the  pope,  apply  admira- 
bly to  this  scheme,  simply  changing  the  person  of  the 
pope  for  this  Popery  of  binding  all  Christianity  absolutely 
to  episcopal  ordinations  and  personal  succession.  For  what- 
CA-er  the  popes  have  done,  this  succession  hath  done  :  the 
popes,  as  bishops  of  Rome,  having  always  been  the  main  pil- 
lars of  the  whole  system.  The  scheme  is  one,  and  its  claims 
are  one.  The  perfection  of  the  whole  depends  upon  the 
perfection  of  every  part.  It  is  a  chain,  forming,  says  Dr. 
Hook,  an*  "  uxbroken  line  from  Peter — to  the  present 
day."  Every  body  knows  that  the  popes  form  the  main 
LINKS  in  this  chain.  If  you  break  the  links  of  a  chain, 
you  break  the  chain  itself.  Barrow  breaks  the  popes  as 
links  in  this  succession  chain  ;  he  breaks,  therefore,  the 
chain  itself.  "  If,  then,"  say  he,  "  the  bishops  of  Rome," 
[alias  the  ?ninisters  of  this  scheme,  in  any  age,)  "  instead  of 
teaching  Christian  doctrine,  do  propagate  errors  contrary  to 
it ;  if,  instead  of  guiding  into  truth  and  godliness,  they  se- 
duce into  falsehood  and  impiety  ;  if,  instead  of  declaring 
and  press^ing  the  laws  of  God,  they  deliver  precepts  oppo- 
site, prejudicial,  destructive  of  God's  laws  ;  if,  instead  of 
promoting  genuine  piety,  they  do  (in  some  instances)  vio- 
lently oppose  it ;  if,  instead  of  maintaining  true  religion, 
they  do  pervert  and  corrupt  it,  by  bold  defalcations,  by  su- 
perstitious additions,  by  foul  mixture  and  alloys  ;  if  they 
coin  new  creeds,  articles  of  faith,  new  scriptures,  new 
sacraments,  new  rules  of  life,  obtruding  them  on  the  con- 
sciences of  Christians  ;  if  they  conform  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity  to  the  interests  of  their  pomp  and  profit, 
making  gain  godliness ;  if  they  prescribe  vain,  profane, 
superstitiouTs  ways  of  worship,  turning  devotion  into  fop- 
pery and  pageantry  ;  if,  instead  of  preserving  order  and 
peace,  they  foment  discords  and  factions  in  the  church, 
being  a  make-bait  and  incendiaries  among  Christians  ;  if 
they  claim  exorbitant  pov/er,  and  exercise  oppression  and 
tyrannical  dominion  over  their  brethren — cursing  and  damn- 
ing all  that  will  not  submit  to  their  dictates  and  commands  ; 
if,  instead  of  being  shepherds,  they  be  wolves,  worrying  and 
tearing  the  flock  by  cruel  persecutions  ;  they  by  such  be- 
haviour, ipso  facto,  deprive  themselves  of  authority  and  office  ; 
they  become  thence  no  guides  nor  pastors  to  any  Christian  ; 


80         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

there  doth  in  such  cases  rest  no  obligation  to  hear  or  obey 
them ;  but  rather  to  decline  them,  to  reject  and  disclaim  them. 
This  is  the  reason  of  the  case.  This  the  Holy  Scripture 
doth  prescribe  ;  this  is  according  to  the  primitive  doctrine, 
tradition,  and  practice  of  the  church."* 


SECTION  V. 

SCRIPTURAL   EVIDENCE    AGAINST    THESE     CLAIMS^     CONTIN- 
UED  BISHOPS     AND     PRESBYTERS     THE    SAME,     PROVED 

FROM  THE  NEW^  TESTAMENT. 

Every  reader  must  see  that  one  of  the  essential  pil- 
lars of  this  high  Church  succession  scheme  is  the  opin- 
ion that  the  order  of  bishops  is,  by  divine  right,  superior  to 
that  of  presbyters,  having  powers  and  authority  incompati- 
ble with  presbyters,  as  presbyters ;  the  sole  power, 
indeed,  o{  ordaining  presbyters,  and  oi governing  presbyters, 
as  well  as  the  people.  In  this  section  we  shall  produce 
from  the  New  Testament  decisive  evidence  against  this 
position,  and  shall  prove  the  truth  of  the  declaration  of  the 
English  reformers,  Cranmer,  &c.,  that  "presbyters  and 
bishops,  BY  God's  law,  are  one  and  the  same.''''  As  preli- 
minary, we  shall  make  three  general  observations  : — 

1.  There  is  not  in  the  whole  book  of  God  any  solid 
proof  that  one  standing  order  of  God's  ministers  were 
ever  appointed  to  have  that  power  and  authority  over  other 
ministers  which  these  succession  divines  claim  for  modern 
bishops.  The  high  priest  among  the  Jews  had  the  per- 
formance of  some  special  duties  of  the  sanctuary,  typical 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  but  there  is  no  solid  proof  that 
he  had,  by  divine  right,  this  sole  power  over  other  priests. 
The  proof  is  so  far  from  it,  as  to  ordination,  that  all  the 
consecration  or  ordination  he  had,  distinct  from  the  other 
priests,  was  by  the  hands  of  these  priests  themselves. 
This  is  clear  from  the  nature  of  the  case  ;  for  as  he  could 
not  succeed  till  his  predecessor  was  dead,  there  could  be 
none  but  common  priests  to  consecrate  or  ordain  him. 
Now  presbyters  are  clearly  as  capable  of  consecrating 
bishops,  as  common  priests  were  of  consecrating  the  high 
*  Dr.  Ban-ow  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  supposition  7th. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         81 

priest.  The  apostles  were  not  a  standing  order ;  but  I  think 
there  is  not  very  clear  evidence  that  they  had  this  sole 
power  and  authority.  When  churches  were  once  planted, 
and  ministers  had  been  appointed,  the  apostles  visited  them 
to  encourage  them  ;  they  wrote  epistles,  by  immediate  di- 
vine authority^  to  all  the  saints^  and  sometimes,  though 
seldom,  they  mention  the  ministers ;  but  I  think  we  find 
no  declared  authority  solely  belonging  to  them  as  apos- 
tles, to  call  any  ministers  to  account,  or  to  depose  them ; 
and  I  am  sure  they  did  not  claim  the  sole  right  of  ordain- 
ing.    See  1  Tim.  iv,  14. 

2.  There  never  was  any  general  council ;  never  any 
number  of  accredited  fathers ;  never  any  modern  church, 
since  the  time  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  who  maintained 
that  bishops  were,  by  divine  right,  an  order  superior  to, 
distinct  from,  and  possessing  powers  and  authority  incom- 
patible with  presbyters,  as  presbyters.  He  that  affirms 
there  was,  let  him  prove  it. 

3.  If  the  sacred  writers  viewed  this  matter  of  the  order 
of  bishops,  as  essentially  superior  to  that  of  presbj^ters,  in 
the  same  light  as  our  liigh  Church  divines  do,  we  may  ex- 
pect to  find  them  manifest  equal,  or  rdXh.eY  greater  care  and 
anxiety  to  mark  this  distinction,  and  lay  down  laws  to 
guard  the  dignity,  powers,  and  authority  of  that  important 
order,  from  all  misapprehension  and  encroachment.  This 
was  done  as  to  the  Levitical  priesthood,  though  belonging 
to  a  far  inferior  dispensation.  But  if  we  find  the  sacred 
loriters  speak  of  bishops  and  presbyters  as  identical, 
marking  no  distinctions,  leaving  no  laws  for  the  regulation 
of  such  distinctions,  we  may  certainly  conclude  that 
the  sacred  writers  had  no  such  views  on  this  point  as  our 
high  Churchmen  hold,  but  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are, 
by  divine  right,  identical, — that  they  are  one  and  the  same 
order  and  office. 

Let  us  now  turn  directly  to  the  New  Testament.  Here, 
and  here  only,  is  the  divine  rule,  as  to  the  qualifications, 
ordination,  duties,  and  powers  of  gospel  ministers.  Beyond 
this  all  is  human,  mere  matter  of  opinion  and  prudential 
arrangement.  And,  while  nothing  is  done  contrary  to  the 
letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  nor  any  human 
arrangement  urged  as  a  matter  of  faith,  every  church  is  at 
liberty  to  make  such  prudential  arrangements  as  they  may 
4* 


82         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

deem  most  calculated  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  conversion 
of  sinners,  and  the  edification  of  the  church. 

1.  The  word  bishop,  emoKOTTog,  is  never  used  in  the 
Neio  Testament  to  signify  the  office  o{  oversight  over  minis- 
ters, but  onJ7j  over  the  flock  of  Christ.  The  noun  eraa- 
KOTToc,  episcopos,  signifying  bishop  or  overseer,  is  used 
only  five  times  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Acts  xx,  28, 
it  is  distinctly  said,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  made  the  pres- 
byters of  Ephesus  "  overseers  [bishops]  over  the  flock" 
Again,  in  Phil,  i,  1  :.  "  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants 
of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are 
at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons."  Now  here 
are  only  "  bishops  and  deacons"  mentioned.  We  have  no 
mention  of  deacons  in  the  New  Testament  as  pastors ;  and 
the  question  is  only  about  bishops  and  presbyters.  Here 
are  not  any  but  the  people,  the  flock,  to  oversee.  Dr. 
Whitby  says,  that  "  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  do  with 
one  consent  declare  that  the  apostle  here  calls  their  pres- 
byters their  bishops."  Of  course,  if  they  all  say  that 
presbyters  are  here  meant  by  bishops,  the  high  Church 
advocates  of  modern  bishops  will  not  wish  to  make  it  out 
that  the  oversight  exercised  by  these  presbyters  was  over 
pastors,  because  then  it  perhaps  might  follow  that  these 
presbyter-bishops  had  the  oversight  over  some  that  were 
simply  bishops.  The  next  passage  is,  1  Tim.  iii,  1-5  : 
"  This  is  a  true  saying.  If  a  man  desire  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  he  desireth^  good  work.  A  bishop  then  must  be 
blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good 
behaviour,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach ;  not  given  to 
wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre  ;  but  patient, 
not  a  brawler,  not  covetous  ;  one  that  ruleth  well  his  own 
house,  having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity; 
(for  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  how 
shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God  ?)"  Now  here  is 
not  a  word  about  the  oversight  over  pastors,  but  about 
"  taking  care  of  the  church  of  God."  When  ministers  and 
people  are  spoken  of  in  this  manner,  the  church  of  God 
distinctly  means  the  people,  "  the  flock."  So,  "  Take  heed 
therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  the 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  made  you  overseers,  to  feed 
the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood,"  Acts  XX,  28.     And  it  is  evident  the  apostle  means 


ON  xVPOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSIOX.  83 

the  same  thing  in  1  Tim.  iii,  1-5,  for  he  compares  "  taking 
care  of  the  church  of  God"  to  a  man's  "  ruling  well  his 
own  house,  having  his  childrex  in  suhjectionr  Pastors 
are  always  stewards  or  householders,  but  never  the  childreii, 
when  the  relation  between  the  members  of  God's  house- 
hold is  thus  represented.  The  vv'ord  emGKOTTog  occurs 
again  in  Titus  i,  7 :  "  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as 
the  steward  of  God ;  not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not 
given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  given  to  filthy  lucre."  This 
passage  is  the  same  in  substance  as  the  former,  and  must 
have  the  same  interpretation.  The  last  place  in  the  New 
Testament  where  the  word  occurs,  is  1  Pet.  ii,  25  :  "  For 
ye  were  as  sheep  going  astray ;  but  are  now  returned  unto 
the  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  your  souls."  Here  it  is  ap- 
plied to  our  adorable  Redeemer ;  but  it  is  distinctly/  eo> 
plained  as  referring  to  him,  not  in  the  character  of  chief 
Pastor,  as  superintending  other  pastors,  but  as  to  his  over- 
sight over  the  souls  of  the  people — "  Bishop  of  your  souls." 
What  can  be  a  clearer  proof,  that  the  title  of  bishop,  in  the 
New  Testament,  was  not  given  to  designate  an  office 
principally  distinguished  in  its  superiority  by  its  oversight 
over  other  pastors,  than  this,  that  the  word  is  never  so 
USED  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  always  and  only  to  imply 

OVERSIGHT  OVER   THE  FLOCK  ? 

2.  Bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  New  Testament  have 
the  NAMES  COMMON,  that  is,  bishops  are  called  presbyters, 
and  presbyters  are  called  bishops,  indifferently ;  therefore 
they  are  essentially  one  and  the  same.  It  is  granted  by 
Episcopalians,  high  and  low,  that  the  names  are  common. 
Dr.  Hammond,  in  chapter  sixth  of  his  Fourth  Dissertation 
against  Blondel,  admits  this,  as  to  the  fathers  in  general, 
and  quotes  the  words  of  Theodoret,  that  "  they  both  had 
the  names  common."  And  CEcumenius,  says  he,  follow- 
ing Chrysostom,  declares  the  same.  So  Bishop  Taylor 
says,  "  All  men  grant  that  (in  Scripture)  the  names  are 
confounded,^''  sec.  32  :  and  even  Dr.  Hook  does  not  deny 
this.  However,  these  writers  deny  the  conclusion,  that 
the  names  being  thus  common,  the  offices  are  essentially 
the  same  :  we  affirm  it.  We  affirm  it  from  the  usage  of 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no  in- 
stance, in  the  New  Testament,  of  using  the  names  of  offi 
cers  so  in  common,  and  of  employing  the  terms  indiffer 


84         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ently,  the  one  for  the  other,  without  any  marked  distinc- 
tion ;  and  yet  those  offices  remaining  essentially  different 
and  incompatible.  Apostles  are  sometimes  called  elders  ; 
but  apostles  are  not  called  elders,  and  elders  apostles,  in- 
differently, and  without  distinction  :  they  are  mentioned 
together  and  distinctly,  "  apostles  and  elders,"  Acts  xv,  6 
and  23.  Now  this  is  never  the  case  with  bishops  and 
presbyters ;  they  are  never  thus  distinguished.  When 
either  of  the  terms  bishop  or  presbyter  is  used,  the  other 
is  never  used  along  with  it ;  which  proves  they  meant  the 
same  thing,  as  one  always  sufficed  without  the  other.  The 
same  remarks  apply  to  the  word  deacon.  The  general 
meaning  of  this  word  is  minister.  It  is  sometimes,  there- 
fore, used  for  an  apostle,  as  an  apostle  was  a  minister  of 
Christ.  But  then  the  distinction  is  plain  enough  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  for  any  one  to  say  that  apostles  are 
called  deacons,  and  deacons  apostles,  indifferently  in  the 
New  Testament,  would  only  be  to  expose  himself  to  the 
contempt  of  every  thinking  person.  The  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  then,  establishes  the  conclusion,  that, 
where  the  "  names  are  common,"  the  things  are  substan- 
tially the  same.  Besides,  the  contrary  position  is  absurd, 
and  implies  a  strange  imputation  upon  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  viz.,  that  they  should  use  the  "  names  in  com- 
mon  and  confound  them,"  while  the  things  were  essen- 
tially different.  This  would  be  to  say  that  the  apostles, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  that  inspired  them,  were  either  unable 
to  distinguish  things  by  right  names,  or  were  totally  negli- 
gent of  such  distinctions  in  matters  of  the  highest  import- 
ance ;  or,  lastly,  that  they  designed  to  mislead  their  readers 
under  the  ambiguities  o/' language  :*  all  of  which  are  im- 

*  Mr.  Sinclair  (p.  10)  actually  declares  that  "  we  cannot  reasonably 
look  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  any  regular  discussion  or  explicit  state- 
ments" on  these  subjects  ;  yet  he  and  his  brethren  think  they  can 
"  reasonably''^  excommunicate  others  for  not  receiving  that  for  which 
they  "  cannot  reasonably  look"  in  the  Scriptures.  He  pronounces  it 
"  idle  to  expect'^  these  things  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  good  reason  with  Mr.  Sinclair  and  such  writers  for  these 
statements  :  they  know  the  New  Testament  fails  to  support  their  cause. 
He  asserts  (p.  14)  that  the  "  offices  of  religion  (of  Christianity)  could 
NOT  at  once  possess  appropriate  designations."  So  the  Holy  Ghost 
really  "  could  not  give  appropriate  designations"  to  the  officers  of  the 
church  without  the  help  of  ecclesiastics  ! !  Accordingly,  he  says,  (p.  16,) 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         85 

putations  so  monstrously  absurd,  not  to  say  blasphemous, 
that  no  pious  mind  could  maintain  them,  when  seen,  for  a 
single  moment.  There  is  no  such  usage  in  any  language, 
as  that  names  should  be  common  and  confounded,  where 
things  are  essentially  different :  the  thing  is  impossible. 
The  community  of  names,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, between  bishops  and  presbyters,  implies  a  com- 
munity of  attributes,  a  substantial  identity  of  nature ;  and 
that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  not  only  nominally,  but 
really  and  indeed,  one  and  the  same  office.  We  will  now 
give  a  few  examples  from  the  New  Testament  of  this 
community  of  names.  In  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  he  thus  addresses  them,  chap,  i,  1  :  "  Paul  and  Ti- 
motheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippf,  with  the  bishops  and 
deacons."  "  The  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,"  it  is  granted, 
"  do  with  one  consent  declare  that  the  apostle  here  calls 
their  presbyters  their  bishops."  In  his  Epistle  to  Titus, 
chap,  i,  5-7,  he  speaks  as  follows  :  "  For  this  cause  left  I 
thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  [presbyters]  in  every 
city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee  :  if  any  be  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children,  not  accused 
of  riot,  or  unruly.  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the 
steward  of  God  :  not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not  given 
to  wine,  no  striker,  not  given  to  filthy  lucre."  Here  no- 
thing can  be  clearer  than  that  presbyters  and  bishops  are 
spoken  of  as  identical.  To  say,  ordain  elders,  for  a  bishop 
must  be  blameless,  is  like  saying,  crown  the  sovereign, 
for  the- king  must  be  crowned.  In  1  Tim.  iii,  1,  2,  &c., 
the  same  subject  is  treated  nearly  in  the  same  words.  In 
Timothy,  the  term  bishop  only  is  used,  it  being  indifferent 
which  was  employed,  whether  bishop  or  presbyter,  as  they 
both  meant  the  same.  Again,  in  Acts  xx,  17  and  28 — ■ 
"  And  from  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the 

**  We  must  NOT  expect  words  and  phrases  to  be  used  with  the  same 
precision,  on  their  first  appropriation,"  in  the  New  Testament,  "  to 
ecclesiastical  things  and  persons,  as  we  find  them  in  later  ages  :  when 
their  peculiar  and  restricted  meaning  was  established,  and  when  fami- 
liarity with  their  new  interpretation  had  dissolved  ancient  associations." 
Is  not  this  saying  that  ecclesiastics,  and  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  are  to  establish  the  terms  and  laws  of  office  in  Chris- 
tianity ■?    The  pope  and  Church  of  Rome  never  demanded  more. 


86         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

elders* [presbyters]  of  the  church.  And  when  they  were 
come  to  him,  he  said  unto  them,' Take  heed,  therefore, 
unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  over  the  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  [bishops,]  to  feed 
the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood."  In  these  passages  the  matter  is  so  clear,  that  to 
add  any  remarks  would  be  to  insult  the  reader's  under- 
standing. St.  Peter's  language  proves  the  same  point. 
In  his  first  epistle,  chap,  v,  1-3,  he  thus  speaks  :  "  The 
ELDERS  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an 
ELDER,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also 
a  partaker  of  the  glor}'  that  shall  be  revealed :  feed  the 
flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight 
thereof,  {emaiw-ovvreg,  acting  the  bishops,)  not  by 
constraint,  but  willingly ;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a 
ready  mind  ;  neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage, 
but  being  ensamples  to  the  flock." 

So  much  for  the  names  ;  we  now  come  to  the  things. 

3.  Bishops  and  presbyters  have  the  same  qualifica- 
tions. Titus  i,  5-7;  1  Tim.  iii,  1,  2,  &c. ;  Acts  xx,  17 
and  28. 

4.  Bishops  and  presbyters  have  the  same  ordination. 
Acts  XX,  17  and  28  ;  TiUis  i,  5-7. 

5.  Bishops  and  presbyters  have  the  same  duties  :  proofs 
as  before. 

6.  Bishops  and  presbyters  have  the  same  power  and 
authority.  In  the  above  passages  no  distinction  is  made ; 
neither  is  there  any  in  the  New  Testament,  at  least  in 
favour  of  bishops. 

But, 

7.  Presbyters  OxNly  are  expressly  said  to  ordain.  "  Neg- 
lect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  1  Tim.  iv,  14. 

8.  The  apostles  sometimes  call  themselves  presbyters, 
but  never  bishops. 

The  term  eniofcoTT')],  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  once  (Acts  i,  20)  appUed  to  the  office  of  an  apostle 
in  the  New  Testament ;  and  is  translated  "  bishopric :" 
however,  it  is  never  repeated,  in  this  use  for  the  apostle- 
ship,  in  the  direct  language  of  the  New  Testament.  This 
is  remarkable.  The  apostles,  therefore,  are  never  called 
bishops  in  the  New  Testament ;  neither  is  their  office  ever 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         87 

designated  by  any  cognate  or  similar  term  in  the  direct 
language  of  the  New  Testament. 

9.  Presbyters  are  mentioned  as  joining  the  apostles  in 
the  COUNCIL  at  Jerusalem,  but  no  express  mention  is  made 
of  bishops.    Acts  xv,  2,  4,  6,  22,  23. 

10.  The  collections  for  the  poor  at  Jerusalem  are  to  be 
sent  to  the  presbyters,  and  no  mention  of  bishops.  Acts 
xi,  30. 

11.  It  is  well  known  that  each  church,  containing  the 
congregation  of  a  city  and  its  suburbs,  was,  in  the  apostles' 
time,  the  whole  diocess.  It  was  never  called  diocess  by 
the  earliest  Christian  writers  ;  the  term  parish  was  the 
usual  appellation.  Now  presbyters  are  the  only  ministers 
expressly  mentioned  as  having  the  oversight  and  govern- 
ment of  the  churches  planted  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  :  Acts 
xiv,  23,  "  And  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  [pres- 
byters] in  ever}^  church,  and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they 
commended  them  to  the  Lord,  on  whom  they  believ^ed." 

If  half  so  much  could  be  said  for  the  divine  right  of  the 
superiority  of  bishops,  as  is  found  in  Nos.  7-11,  for  the 
apparent  superiority  of  presbyters  over  bishops,  w^e  should 
be  accounted  profane  to  doubt  their  eminence,  dignity, 
powers,  and  authority.  Here  the  presbyters  are  the  only 
persons  expressly  mentioned  as  having  the  right  and  au- 
thority to  lay  on  hands  in  ordination  ;  what  sacrilege,  then, 
it  would  be  said,  to  violate  this  divine  order  !  The  apostles 
are  called  presbyters  ;  therefore  presbyters  are  apostles, 
and  the  only  successors  to  their  power  and  authority. 
Tliis  is  triumphantly  proved,  it  would  be  argued  in  the 
same  style,  by  the  presbyters  being  the  only  ministers 
acting  with  the  apostles  in  sacred  council  at  Jerusalem. 
They  only  were  intrusted  with  the  collections  sent  by  other 
churches  to  Jerusalem ;  therefore  all  the  goods  of  the 
church  are  by  divine  right  under  their  government.  They 
were  the  only  persons  expressly  said  to  be  placed  in  each 
diocess  by  the  apostles  themselves  :  who,  then,  can  doubt 
that,  whatever  other  ministers  might  be  added  afterward, 
they  must  be  inferior  to  these  apostolically  succeeding 
presbyters  ? 

Any  man  who  knows  church  history,  and  the  history 
of  bishops,  councils,  and  successions,  will  knov>^  that  not 
a  hundredth  part  of  their  proceedings  have  half  so  much 


88        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

apparent  divine  right  as  is  shown  in  the  above  particulars 
for  the  superiority  of  presbyters  over  bishops.  And  yet 
we  do  not  seriously  maintain  that  any  essential  difference 
existed  between  them.  However,  all  the  difference  cer- 
tainly appears  in  favour  of  the  divine  right  of  the  superi- 
ority of  presbyters  over  bishops.  They  were  all  bishops  ; 
but  a  presbyter-bishop  was  superior  in  gravity  and  wisdom, 
and  in  the  authority  which  these  qualities  gave  to  him, 
over  one  who  was  simply  a  bishop. 

Let  the  reader  peruse  again  the  statements  of  the  suc- 
cession divines,  sec.  i,  and  consider  whether  he  finds  a 
single  point  of  that  system  established  by  Scriptural  evi- 
dence. Not  a  word  in  the  New  Testament  about  bishops 
as  a  superior  order  to  presbyters  ;  about  the  sole  power  of 
ordaining  ministers  belonging  to  them  ;  and  about  no  mi- 
nistry nor  ordinances  being  valid  but  such  as  emanate 
from  these  "  spiritual  princes  and  vicegerents"  of  God  and 
of  Christ ; — not  a  word  will  he  find  clearly  in  proof  of  these 
strange  pretences. 

The  pretence,  then,  for  bishops  as  an  order  superior  to 
presbyters,  has  no  ground  in  the  New  Testament;  the 
CONTRARY  is  plainly  made  out  in  this  section.  Presbyters 
have,  therefore,  by  divine  right,  equally  as  much  power 
to  ORDAIN  ministers,  and  to  govern  the  church,  as  bishops  ; 
nay,  they  have  certainly  more,  for  there  is  plain.  Scriptural 
authority  for  their  doing  these  things,  but  there  is  none 
expressly  for  bishops.  All  the  other  Protestant 
CHURCHES  IN  EuROPE,  bcsidcs  the  Church  of  England, 
have  ordination  hy  presbyters.  Their  ministers,  therefore, 
and  ordinances,  are  equally  valid  with  those  of  the  Church 
of  England ;  and  more  conformable  to  express  Scripture. 
"  Whatsoever''  says  Bishop  Taylor,  as  the  champion  of 
high  Church  episcopacy,  "  was  the  regiment  of  the  church 
in  the  apostles'  times,  that  must  be  perpetuall,  (not  so  as  to 
have  all  that  which  was  personall,  and  temporary,  but  so 
as  to  have  no  other,)  for  that,  and  that  only,  is  of  divine 
institution  which  Christ  committed  to  the  apostles  ;  and 
if  the  church  be  not  now  governed  as  then,  we  can 
show  NO  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  for  our  government,  which 
we   MUST   contend  to   doe,  and  doe  it  too,  or  be   call'd 

Bishop  Taylor's  Episcopacy  Asserted,  p.  41. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  89 


SECTION  VI. 

THE      SAME      ARGUMENT      CONTINUED PRESBYTERS      AND 

BISHOPS   THE    SAME  ;    PROVED  FROM  THE   PUREST  CHRIS- 
TIAN ANTIQUITY. 

We  are  now  coming  upon  ground  of  no  essential  im- 
portance to  our  cause.  Divine  right  can  only  be  proved 
by  divine  authority  ;  the  fathers  are  mere  human  au- 
thority :  they  never  expected  to  be  received  in  any  other 
light.  Indeed  no  church,  not  even  the  Church  of  Rome, 
ever  confined  itself  to  the  authority  of  the  fathers  any  fur- 
ther than  they  found  that  authority  favour  their  schemes 
and  designs.  Let  any  man  read  even  Bishop  Taylor's 
Liberty  of  Prophesying,  sections  5-8,  and  he  will  be 
abundantly  satisfied  on  this  point.  A  short  extract  or  two 
from  him  may  suffice.  "  No  church  at  this  day  admits 
the  one-half  oi  those  things,  which  certainly  by  the  fathers 
were  called  traditions  apostolical,^^  sec.  5.  "  And,  there- 
fore, it  is  not  HONEST  for  either  side  to  press  the  authority 
of  the  fathers,  as  a  concluding  argument  in  matters  of 
dispute,  unless  themselves  will  be  content  to  submit  in  all 
things  to  the  testimony  of  an  equal  number  of  them,  which 
I  am  certain  neither  side  will  do,"  sec.  8.  One  of  the 
greatest  of  the  fathers,  St.  Augustine,  shall  state  this  point, 
of  the  authority  of  fathers,  councils,  (fee.  To  the  Dona- 
tists  he  says,  "  You  are  accustomed  to  object  against  us  the 
letters  of  Cyprian,  the  judgment  of  Cyprian,  the  cou?icil 
held  under  Cyprian.  Now,  who  knows  not  that  the  holy 
and  canonical  Scripture  is  confined  solely  to  the  Old  and 
New  Testament ;  and  in  this  it  is  distinguished  from  the 
writings  of  all  succeeding  bishops,  that  no  doubt  nor  dis- 
pute whatever  is  to  be  had  about  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as 
to  the  truth  and  right  of  any  thing  contained  in  the  same  : 
but  the  letters  of  bishops,  written  after  the  confirmation  of 
the  sacred  canon,  may  be  reprehended  or  corrected,  if  in 
any  thing  they  deviate  from  the  truth,  by  the  iciser  writings 
of  ANY  ONE  having  in  this  matter  more  knowledge  than  they, 
or  by  the  weightier  authority  and  deeper  prudence  of  other 
bishops  or  councils.     And  even  councils  themselves,  held 


90        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

in  particular  regions  or  provinces,  yield,  without  question, 
to  the  autliority  o(  fuller  councils,  collected  from  the  whole 
Christian  world ;  and  these  fuller  councils  are  often  cor- 
rected hy  succeeding  ones,  when  experience  has  brought 
something  to  the  light  which  was  before  hid,  and  some- 
thing which  escaped  has  become  known  ;  and  all  this  may, 
and  ought  to  be  done,  without  any  sacrilegious  presump- 
tion, any  inflated  arrogance,  and  with  Christian  charity."* 
This  is  worthy  of  St,  Augustine.  The  Scriptures  are 
alone  divine  authority ;  all  human  writings  and  councils 
are  fallible  :  their  regulations  are  merely  prudential.  This 
the  reformers  maintained :  this  is  the  true  principle  of 
Protestantism. 

However,  we  shall  see  whether  the  boasting  of  these 
writers,  as  to  the  authority  of  the  fathers,  in  favour  of  their 
scheme,  is  not  vain  also.  The  best  writers  on  this  subject 
mostly  confine  the  purest  Christian  antiquity  to  the  first 
THREE  CENTURIES.  Now  I  challenge  any  man  to  produce 
clear  evidence  of  high  Church  episcopacy  from  the  fathers 
of  this  period. 

There  is  one  very  natural  mistake  into  which  the  advo- 
cates of  this  opinion  have  fallen.  It  is  this, — that  when- 
ever bishops  are  mentioned  distinctly  from  presbyters,  in 
ancient  writers,  they  immediately  suppose  their  point  is 
proved.  I  say  this,  to  them,  is  rather  a  natural  mistake  ; 
for  such  men  are  so  accustomed  to  use  the  terms  bishops 
and  presbyters,  in  their  own  times,  for  what  they  receive 
as,  by  DIVINE  right,  two  distinct  orders,  that  they  easily 
fall  into  the  persuasion  that  the  ancient  writers  meant  the 
same  as  they  mean.  Bingham  has  quoted,  though  for  a 
different  purpose,  a  good  observation  from  Cardinal  Bona  : 
"  They  deserve  very  ill  of  the  sacred  rites  of  the  church,  and 
of  their  venerable  antiquity,  \y\\o  measure  all  ancient  customs 
by  the  practice  of  the  present  times,  and  judge  of  the  primi- 
tive discipline  only  by  the  rule  and  customs  of  the  age  they 
live  in  ;  being  deceived  by  a  false  persuasion,  that  the 
practice  of  the  church  never  differed  in  any  point  from  the 
customs  which  they  learned  from  their  forefathers  and 
teachers,  and  which  they  have  been  inured  to  from  their 
tender  years  :  whereas  we  retain  many  words  in  common 

*  Contra  Donatistas,  lib.  ii,  c.  3,  pp.  32,  33,  vol.  vii,  fol.  ed.,  Lug- 
duni,  1664. 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         51 

with  the  ancient  fathers,  but  in  a  sense  as  different 
from  THEIRS  as  our  times  are  remote /rom  the  first  ages 
after  Christ'''*  Hence  it  is  necessary  to  take  care  that 
we  neither  deceive  ourselves,  nor  others,  by  a  misapplica' 
tion  of  words.  Mr.  Sinclair  (p.  21)  has  a  strange  rule  of 
criticism  in  these  matters.  Having  translated  the  word 
Tjyovfievoc,  in  St.  Clement,  by  "  supreme  rulers,"  he  justi- 
fies his  translation  by  saying,  that  in  "  later  times  it  is 
among  the  ordinary-  designations  of  a  bishop."  A  very 
convenient  way  this  of  making  the  fathers  say  what  we 
say.  To  prevent  mistakes  in  words,  it  will  be  proper  to 
fix  the  meaning  of  the  terms  ordo,  gradus,  <fec.,  order  and 
degree,  as  used  by  the  fathers. 

1.  Order,  and  gradus  or  degree,  then,  are  by  the  fathers 
used  PROMISCUOUSLY.  "  It  is  evident,"  says  Bishop  Tay- 
lor, "  that  in  antiquity,  ordo  and  gradus  {order  and  degree) 
were  used  promiscuously."  Bingham  says,  "  St.  Jerome, 
who  will  he  allowed  to  speak  the  sense  of  the  ancients,  makes 
no  difference  in  these  words,  ordo,  gradus,  officium,"  [order, 
degree,  and  ojice.f) 

2.  By  these  words — order,  degree,  and  office — the  fathers 
only  meant  distinct  classes  of  persons,  without  implying  any 
DIVINE  authority  for  the  arrangement.  It  is  not  denied  by 
these  divines  that  there  were  other  classes  of  persons  in 
the  primitive  church  besides  bishops  and  presbyters;  these 
CLASSES  are  also  called  orders,  offices,  or  degrees,  by  the 
ancients.  So,  for  instance,  among  clerical  ordinations, 
"  ordinationihus  clericis,"  Cyprian  mentions  his  ordaining 
Aurelius  to  the  degree,  "  gradus,"  of  a  "  reader. ":|:  So 
of  Cderinus  as  to  the  same  office  ;§ — of  Optatus  to  that  of 
"  subdeacon."||  And  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  in  the 
third  century,  mentions  "  suhdeacons,  clerks,  exorcists, 
readers,  and  janitors''^  Jerome,  who,  Bingham  grants, 
will  give  us  the  sense  of  the  ancients,  mentions  "  quinque 
ecclesicB  ordines,  episcopi,  presbyteri,  diaconi,  fideles,  cate- 
cumeni ;  the  five  orders  of  the  church,  bishops,  presby- 
ters, DEACONS,  \he  faithful,  and  catechumens y**    And  there 

*  Bingham's  Works,  vol.  i,  Pref.,  p.  2,  folio,  London,  1726. 

t  Book  2,  chap,  i,  p.  17.  X  Epistola  33,  ed.  Pamel. 

^  Ep.  34,  p.  58.  II  Ep.  24. 

IF  Euseb.  E.  H.  L.  6,  c.  43. 

**  Hieronymi  Op.,  vol.  v,  fol.  41,  ed.  1516  :  Basil. 


92         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

is  a  long  treatise  in  Jerome's  Works,  distinctly  treating  up- 
on SEVEN  ORDERS," the  fossarius, the  doorkeeper, the  reader, 
the  subdeacon,  the  deacon,  the  priest  or  presbyter,  and  the 
bishop."  He  calls  the  fossarius  the  first  degree  or  order, 
and  the  bishop  the  seventh;  and  everywhere  uses  order 
and  degree  as  synonymous.  Here,  then,  if  the  term  order 
means  a  distinct  superiority  by  divine  right,  there  is  divine 
right  for  the  gravediggers,  doorkeepers,  readers,  and  sub- 
deacons.  If  it  does  NOT  imply  divine  right  in  four  or  five 
instances  out  of  the  seven,  by  what  logic  will  it  be  made 
to  signify  divine  right  for  the  order  of  bishops  as  distinct 
from  presbyters  ?  And  this  very  writer,  whether  Jerome 
or  not,  says,  that  "  the  ordi7iation  of  clergymen,  the  consecra- 
tion of  virgins,  the  dedication  of  altars  or  churches,  and  the 
preparation  of  the  chrism,  were  reserved  to  the  bishop 
SOLELY  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  authority  or  honour, 
lest  the  discipline  of  the  church,  being  separated  among 
many,  divisions  should  arise  between  the  ministers,  and 
should  produce  general  scandal."  And  he  goes  on  to  show 
that  presbyters  are,  by  divine  right,  the  same  as  bishops,  and 
have  from  God  power  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  the 
church ;  yea,  that  in  a  presbyter  is  the  highest  point, 
and  the  whole  of  the  ministry — "  Ergo  in  presbytero  sum- 
mam  sACERDOTii  coUocariP*  He  advises,  however,  to 
submit  to  the  arrangement,  made  for  the  honour  of  the 
bishop  and  the  concord  of  the  church,  only  it  be  used  with 
humility,  and  not  with  pride. 

Among  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the  British  and  Anglo- 
Saxon  churches,  are  found  the  canons  of  Elfric  to  Bishop 
Wulfin.  Howell  thinks  they  were  both  bishops.  %Fox, 
the  martyrologist,  says,  "  that  Elfric  is  supposed  by  Cap- 
grave,  and  William  of  Malmsbury,  to  have  been  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  about  996 ;  and  Wulfsinus,  or  Wulfin,  to 
have  been  bishop  of  Scyrburne  or  Sherborn.  Elfric's  two 
Epistles,  in  the  Saxon  canons  and  constitutions,  were  given 
by  Wulfstane,  bishop  of  Worcester,  as  a  great  jewel  to  the 
church  of  Worcester."!  In  the  tenth  canon,  Elfric  num- 
bers seven  degrees,  or  orders,  as  follows  : — "  1,  ostiarius  or 
doorkeeper  ;  2,  reader  ;  3,  exorcist ;  4,  acolyth  ;  5,  sub- 
deacon  ;    6,  deacon ;    7,  presbyter."     These  are    all   the 

*  Vol.  ii,  fol.  54. 

t  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  vol.  ii,  p.  376,  fol.  ed.    Lond.,  1684. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         93 

orders  he  mentions  in  the  church.  He  does  not  mention 
the  bishops  as  either  degree  or  order.  But  under  the 
order  of  presbyter  he  says,  "  There  is  no  more  difference 
between  the  mass-preshyter  and  the  bishop  than  this,  that 
the  bishop  is  appointed  to  confer  ordinations,  and  to  see  to 
the  execution  of  the  laws  of  God  ;  which,  if  every  presby- 
ter should  do  it,  would  be  committed  to  too  many.  Both, 
indeed,  are  oxe  and  the  same  order,  although  the  part  of 
the  bishop  is  the  more  honourable.  Ambo  siquidein  unum 
EUNDEMQUE  tenent  ordixem  quamvis  sit  dignior  ilia  pars 
episcopiJ^* 

These  passages  sufficiently  prove,  and  more  might  be 
produced,  that  the  ancients,  by  the  terms  order,  degree,  or 
office,  only  meant  certain  classifications  of  persons  in  the 
church,  without  intending  to  imply  any  divine  authority 
or  law  for  these  arrangements.  The  use  of  these  words 
alone,  then,  as  applied  to  any  distinction,  in  their  day,  be- 
tween bishops  and  presbyters,  will  never  prove  more  than  a 
human  or  ecclesiastical  custom  or  arrangement.  Nay, 
even  the  very  fact  of  this  promiscuous  use  of  these 
terms  proves  that  the  ancients  really  had  not  the  opinion 
that  that  distinction  between  bishop  and  presbyters  was  by 
divine  right,  and  that  it  was  such  as  our  high  Church  di- 
vines maintain  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  by  eccle- 
siastical authority  alone.  The  supposition  is  absurd,  that 
they  should  hold  the  same  views  as  our  divines,  and  yet, 
though  the  matter  was  constantly  before  them,  should 
never  say  so.  They  mention  the  fact  of  the  distinction 
repeatedly,  especially  in  the  second  and  following  centu- 
ries,- BUT  never  the  divine  RIGHT  of  bishops  as  an  order 
with  powers  incompatible  with  presbyters. 

In  order  to  understand  the  fathers  aright,  as  to  this 
arrangement  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  Jerome  shall,  first, 
according  to  Bingham,  ^^  give  us  the  sense  of  the  an- 
cients." In  his  note  on  Titus,  chap,  i,  he  speaks  at  large 
and  unequivocally,  as  follows  : — "  Presbyters  and  bishops," 
says  he,  "  were  formerly  the  same.  And  before  the  devil 
incited  men  to  make  divisions  in  religion,  and  one  was  led 
to  say,  'I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,'  churches  were 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  the  presbyters. 
But  afterward,  when  every  one  in  baptizing  rather  made 
*  Canones,  &c.,  a  Laur.  Howel,  A.  M.,  pp.  66,  67,  fol.  Londini,  1708. 


94         ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

proselytes  to  himself  than  to  Christ,  it  was  everywhere 
decreed  that  one  person,  elected  from  the  rest  of  the 
presbyters  in  each  church,  should  be  placed  over  the 
others,  that,  the  chief  care  of  the  church  devolving  upon 
him,  the  seeds  of  division  might  be  taken  away.  Should 
any  one  suppose  this  opinion,  viz.,  that  bishops  and  pres- 
byters are  the  same,  and  that  one  is  the  denomination  of 
age,  and  the  other  of  office,  is  not  determined  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  is  only  a  private  opinion,  let  him  read  over  again 
the  apostle's  words  to  the  Philippians,  saying,  '  Paul  and 
Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ  which  are  at 
Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons :  grace  be  unto  you, 
and  peace,  from  God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.'  Philippi  is  one  of  the  cities  of  Macedonia ;  and 
certainly  as  to  those  who  are  now  esteemed  bishops,  not 
more  than  one  at  a  time  can  be  in  one  and  the  same  city* 
But  because  bishops  at  that  time  were  called  the  same  as 
presbyters,  therefore  the  apostle  speaks  of  bishops  indif- 
ferently as  being  the  same  as  presbyters.  And  here  it 
should  be  carefully  observed  how  the  apostle,  sending  for 
the  presbyters,"  in  the  plural,  "  of  the  single  city  of 
Ephesus  only,  afterward  calls  the  same  persons  bishops, 
Acts  XX,  17,  28.  ■  He  who  receives  the  Epistle  of  Paul 
to  the  Hebrews,  there  finds  the  care  of  the  chMX ch.  divided 
EQUALLY  among  many  :  '  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  you,  and  submit  yourselves  :  for  they  watch  for  your 
souls,  as  they  that  must  give  account ;  that  they  may  do  it 
with  joy,  and  not  with  grief:  for  that  is  unprofitable  for 
you.'  And  Peter,  who  received  his  name  from  the  firm- 
ness of  his  faith,  says,  in  his  epistle,  '  The  presbyters 
who  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  presbyter, 
and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  par- 
taker of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  ;  feed  the  flock  of 
God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof, 
{ETnaKonovvreg,  that  is,  superintending  it,)  not  by  con- 
straint, but  willingly.'     These  passages  we  have  brought 

*  The  reader  should  keep  this  remark  before  his  mind  in  the  examples 
that  follow.  They  not  only  show  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are 
spoken  of  promiscuously  as  being  the  same  order ;  but  they  also  show 
an  irreconcilable  difference  between  Scriptural  bishops  and  ecclesiastical 
bishops  :  of  Scriptural  bishops  there  were  frequently,  perhaps  always, 
MANY  in  one  and  the  same  city  ;  of  ecclesiastical  bishops  there  cannot 
be  more  than  one. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         95 

forward  to  show,  that,  with  the  ancients,  presbyters  were 
the  SAME  as  bishops.  But,  that  the  toots  of  dissension 
might  be  plucked  up,  a  tsage  gradually  took  place  that 
the  chief  care  should  devolve  upon  one.  Therefore,  as 
the  presb)^ers  know  that  it  is  by  the  custom  of  the  church 
[ecclesioi  consuetudine)  that  they  are  to  be  subject  to  him 
who  is  placed  over  them  ;  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they 
are  above  presbyters  rather  by  custom  than  by  divine 
appointment,  and  that  the  church  ought  to  be  ruled  in 
COMMON."  His  celebrated  Epistle  to  Evagrius  treats  on 
the  same  subject  through  the  whole  of  it.  He  delivers 
the  same  sentiments  in  several  other  places  of  his  Works. 
Still  he  continues  to  give  the  bishops  all  those  titles  of 
respect  which  Bingham  and  others  have  mistaken,  or  mis- 
interpreted, for  marks  of  a  distinct  and  superior  order  by 
divine  right.  Jerome  gave  them  "  for  the  honour  of  the 
church'^  and  because  they  had  obtained,  as  St.  Augustine 
saith,  "  by  the  custom  of  the  church ;"  and,  while  no  evil 
use  was  made  of  them,  he  was  justified  in  so  doing. 

Now  it  is  very  important  to  keep  in  mind  that  this  is 
the  judgment  and  testimony  of  the  most  learned  of  the 
Latin  fathers.  Bingham,  a  high  authority  with  Church- 
men, and  a  truly  learned  and  candid  writer,  says,  as  we 
have  seen,  that  "  St.  Jerome  idll  be  allowed  to  speak  the 
sense  of  the  ancientsT  Jerome  was  consulted  upon  the 
highest  matters  of  the  church,  even  by  the  bishop  of  Rome. 
St.  Augustine  declares  himself  inferior  to  Jerome ;  and 
says,  "  Nemo  hominum  scivit  quod  Hieronymus  ignoravit — 
Jerome  knew  every  thing  known  by  man."  Jerome's 
testimony  on  this  subject,  as  quoted  above,  was  referred  to 
frequently  in  succeeding  ages  of  the  church.  It  was,  in 
the  twelfth  century,  introduced  into  the  canon  law.  The 
reformers  repeatedly  referred  to  it.  And  this  they  all  did 
with  approbation.  It  never  was  controverted,  denied,  nor 
disputed,  that  I  am  aware  of,  by  any  writers  of  weight,  nor 
any  authority  in  the  Christian  church,  until  the  sixteenth 
century ;  and  then  only  by  a  part  of  the  Romish  writers, 
and  afterward  by  the  high  Church  of  England  divines. 

Then  let  us  trace  and  confirm  each  of  Jerome's  positions 
from  the  early  fathers.     He  says, — 

First,  that  "-presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same  in  the 
apostles^  times.'' 


96        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Secondly,  that  "  olim,"  formerly,  "  the  church  was  ruled 
by  the  common  council  of  the  presbyters ^ 

Thirdly,  that  "  to  prevent  divisions  or  schisms,  a  usage 
gradually  took  place,  that  the  chief  care  should  devolve 
upon  one."  The  person  who  had  this  chief  care  was 
elected  from  the  rest  of  the  presbyters,  and  placed  over 
them  as  a  superintendent.  Ambrose  calls  him  "  inter 
preshyteros  primus"  (comment  in  1  Tim.  iii,)  or  ^^ primus 
presbyter j^^  (comment  in  Ephes.  iv,)  the  chief  presbyter ; 
by  CUSTOM,  a  superintendent  of  ministers  and  people,  called 
for  the  sake  of  distinction  a  bishop. 

On  this  point  of  superintendency,  it  is  necessary  also 
to  be  clear.  High  Churchmen  evidently  misunderstood  the 
fathers  upon  it.  Indeed,  here  is  the  grand  sophism, 
designed  or  undesigned,  that  runs  through  all  their  writings, 
on  the  subject  of  episcopacy,  jure  divine.  The  facts  of 
superintendency  by  bishops,  mentioned  by  the  fathers,  are, 
with  these  writers,  received  as  proofs  of  divine  right  and 
law.  Every  mention  of  \hG  fact  of  a  bishop's  superintend- 
ency, is,  with  them,  a  proof  of  episcopacy  as  a  superior 
order,  jure  divino.  This  process  is  quick,  and,  to  them, 
conclusive.  But  it  is  really  full  of  fallacy.  Even  had 
the  fathers  maintained  it,  their  authority  would  have  de- 
cided nothing  against  the  testimony  of  the  Scripture  :  but 
they  do  not.  Two  of  the  greatest  of  the  fathers,  Jerome 
and  Augustine,  expressly  interpret  the  term  bishop  by 
"  superintendent."  This  superintendency,  Jerome  tells 
us,  only  came  in  by  custom,  and  not  by  divine  appoint^ 
ment :  so  says  Augustine  also,  that  "  a  bishop  was  above 
a  presbyter  by  the  names  of  honour  which  had  obtained 
by  the  custom  of  the  church."*  Now,  that  superintendency, 
as  a  HUMAN  arrangement,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
equality  of  DIVINE  RIGHT  betwccu  him  who  superin- 
tends and  those  who  are  superintended,  is  plain  from  the 
fact  of  its  positive  existence,  on  a  large  scale  in  the  pre^ 
sent  Christian  church.  The  Lutheran  church  has  the 
arrangement  for  one  minister  to  be  placed  over  other 
ministers  as  their  superintendent.  And  these  are  regu- 
larly called  bishops  and  archbishops  in  Sweden  and  Den- 
mark.    The  ancient   Scotch  kirk  had  the  same  church 

*  August.  0pp.,  vol.  ii,  p.  16,  fol,  ed.,  Lugd.,  1664. 


ON  APOSTOLICAX  SUCCESSION.        97 

officers.  The  Wesleyan  Methodists  have  the  same  ar- 
rangement. Their  chief  superintendents,  in  America,  are 
actually  and  regularly  called  bishops.  And  yet,  in  all 
these  churches,  all  ministers  are  acknowledged  equal  by 
divine  right.  A  bishop,  then,  in  the  primitive  church,  was 
a  superintendent.  This  is  expressly  said,  (by  one  acknoAv- 
ledged  to  be  qualified  to  give  the  sense  of  the  ancients,)  to 
be  only  a  human  arrangement,  a  custom  ;  and  that,  by 
divine  right,  both  the  superintendent  and  the  ministers 
whom  he  superintended,  were  equal.  When  the  fathers, 
therefore,  mention  the  acts  of  a  bishop,  in  superintend- 
ing others,  this  simply,  and  of  itself,  proves  nothing,  as 
to  the  divine  right  of  bishops,  as  a  distinct  order,  but  only 
ihefact  of  such  superintendency.  We  now  proceed  to  the 
fathers. 

Clemens  Romanus  is  the  earliest  writer  we  have  after 
the  apostles'  days.  Dr.  Cave  places  him  An.  Dom.  70  ; 
but  Eusebius  places  the  commencement  of  his  bishopric, 
as  it  is  called,  A.  D.  92.  His  Epistle  to  the  Corinthian 
church  is  esteemed  one  of  the  most  precious  remains  of 
antiquity.  He  never  mentions  together  more  orders  than 
two,  presbyters  and  deacons,  or  bishops  and  deacons  ; 
thus  exactly  following  the  style  of  the  New  Testament, 
using  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  as  synonymous,  both 
meaning  the  same  order  of  men.  He  says  the  apostles, 
"  preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the 
first  fruits  of  their  conversion  to  be  bishops  and  deacons 
over  such  as  should  afterward  believe,  having  first  proved 
them  by  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  this  any  thing  new;  seeing 
that  long  before  it  was  written  concerning  bishops  and 
deacons  :  for  thus  saith  the  Scripture,  in  a  certain  place, 
I  will  appoint  their  overseers  (bishops)  in  righteousness, 
and  their  ministers  (deacons)  in  faith.  Our  apostle  knew 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  there  should  be  contentions 
arise  upon  the  account  of  episcopacy.  And,  therefore, 
having  a  perfect  knowledge  of  this,  they  appointed  persons, 
as  we  have  before  said,  and  then  gave  directions,*  how, 

*  I  have  generally  followed  Archbishop  Wake's  translation.  But  I 
think  the  last  sentence  is  not  properly  rendered.  It  should  be, — "  Our 
apostles'  knew,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  would  be  contention 
about  the  name  of  episcopacy ;  and,  therefore,  being  endued  with  a 
perfect   foreknowledge,   they    appointed   the    aforesaid   officers,  viz., 

5 


98        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

wlien  they  should  die,  other  chosen  men  should  succeed 
in  their  ministry."  Here,  then,  is  a  fair  opportunity  for 
treating  this  subject.  There  was  a  "  sedition"  in  the 
Corinthian  church,  which,  he  says,  was  "  against  its 
PRESBYTERS,"  scc.  47.  Clement  says,  all  this  was  per- 
fectly foreseen  and  provided  for ;  and  he  tells  us  how. 
Well  how  was  it  provided  for  ?  To  be  sure,  by  appointing 
an  order  of  bishops  over  these  presbyters  and  over  the 
people,  with  the  sole  right,  authority,  and  power  of  or- 
rf«mm^  ministers,  performing  confirmations,  and  of  govern- 
ing both  ministers  and  people.  How  different  is  the  fact ! 
Clement  never  mentions  bishops  and  presbyters  as  distinct 
orders,  but  speaks  of  them  as  one  and  the  same.  "  Bishops, 
with  St.  Clement,"  says  Lord  Barrington,  "  are  always 
the  same  with  elders  or  presbyters,  as  any  one  must  see 

bishops  and  deacons,  and  gave  regulations  for  these  offices  separately 
and  mutually,  that  so  when  they  died,  other  proved  men  might  succeed 
to  their  ministry." 

The  diflference  between  this  translation  and  the  translation  of  epis- 
copal divines,  is,  that  these  divines  make  the  "  regulations"  belong  to 
the  succession ;  but  the  above  translation  makes  it  belong  to  the  offices 
of  bishop  and  deacon.  Archbishop  Usher  translates,  "  ordinem ;"  Dr. 
Hammond,  "  seriem  successionis,  catalogum ;"  Archbishop  Wake,  as 
in  the  text.  The  learning  and  talent  of  such  men  deserve  profound 
respect.  The  power  and  influence,  however,  of  a  favourite  theory  are 
wonderful,  even  over  the  greatest  minds.  Had  not  this  been  before 
these  great  men,  they  would  have  seen,  in  a  moment,  that  if  Clement 
had  meant  "  catalogus ,''''  a  catalogue,  he  would  have  written  Karaloyo^  ; 
if,  "  series  successionis,''^  6ia6oxv  ;  if>  ordo,  ra^ig.  'Emvofj.'/}  either 
comes  from  eiri.  and  VEfio,  to  distribute,  divide,  &-c. ;  or  from  eirt  and 
vofioc,  a  law  or  regulation.  In  the  first  case,  it  would  most  properly 
mean  "  a  distribution  or  division"  of  the  offices  of  bishops  and  deacons  ; 
see  this  done,  as  he  says,  by  St.  Paul,  in  1  Tim.  iii,  throughout.  In 
the  second  derivation,  it  would  mean  "  a  law  or  regulation"  of  these 
offices.  Mera^v,  means  "  among,  or  mutually  among  one  another." 
His  expression  /Lcera^v  emvo^rj,  therefore,  following  immediately  upon 
his  mention  of  bishops  and  deacons,  evidently  implies  "  a  law  or  regu- 
lation of  these  offices  separately  and  mutually."  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  it  ever  means  a  catalogue,  succession,  or  order  of  men.  This 
proper  rendering  of  the  passage  takes  away  all  ground  for  the  suppo- 
sition that  St.  Clement  meant  to  say  that  the  apostles  left  lists  of  per- 
sons for  the  succession ;  and  shows  that  the  regulations  he  mentions, 
referred  to  the  worthiness  of  the  persons  to  be  ordained.  Now  this  is 
in  perfect  accordance  with  the  regulations  given  by  St.  Paul  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  ;  and  it  is  to  these  that  Clement  most  probably  refers  ;  the 
other  is  unworthy  of  St.  Paul  and  Clement,  and  only  tends  to  support 
a  bad  scheme. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.         99 

if  they  read  the  epistle."*  Of  course  he  never  mentions  a 
syllable  about  the  prerogatives  of  bishops  in  ordination,  con- 
firmation, &c. ;  never  a  syllable  about  their  governing 
ministers  as  well  as  people.  Clement  knew  no  difference 
between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter.  He  uses  the  names  as 
different  denominations  of  the  same  office. 

We  have  heard  what  he  says  of  bishops.  Hear  him  as 
to  presbyters.  "  Ye  walked  according  to  the  laws  of  God, 
being  subject  to  those  who  had  the  rule  over  you ;  and 
giving  the  hoxour  that  was  fitting  to  such  as  were  pres- 
byters among  you,"  sec.  1 .  "  Only  let  the  flock  of  Christ 
be  in  peace  with  the  presbyters  that  are  set  over  it," 
sec.  54,  Here  presbyters  are  set  over  the  flock,  and 
rule  them ;  and  are  most  evidently  the  same  persons  as 
those  before  called  bishops.  The  occasion  of  his  writing 
arose  from  the  disorders  in  the  church  at  Corinth,  by  the 
opposition  of  some  factious  members  against  their  regular 
ministers.  In  speaking  of  this  faction  or  sedition,  he 
speaks  of  it  "  against  the  presbyters,"  sec.  47.  In  the 
conclusion,  he  exhorts  to  subjection  unto  their  presbyters" 
sec.  57.  Nay,  he  speaks  of  the  happiness  of  those  ^^pres- 
byters" who  had  finished  their  duties  in  their  "  episcopacy" 
before  those  times  of  sedition  had  come  on,  sec.  44.  How 
could  he  have  said  more  plainly  that  presbyters  and  bishops 
are  one  and  the  same,  than  by  saying  that  presbyters  exer- 
cised episcopacy,  the  very  episcopacy  which,  he  says,  was 
meant  by  the  Scriptures  ? — yea,  the  very  episcopacy,  of 
which  he  declares  the  apostles  left  directions  how  ap- 
proved men  should  succeed  one  another  in  that  office  ? 
In  those  early  days,  a  church,  a  city,  a  parish,  and  a  dio- 
cess,  were,  as  to  extent,  all  one  and  the  same  thing.  Now, 
according  to  modern  episcopacy,  there  cannot  be  more  than 
one  bishop  in  one  city,  or  diocess,  at  the  same  time.  But 
Clement  always  speaks  of  the  ministers  of  the  si?igle  city 
of  Corinth,  whether  called  bishops  or  presbyters,  in  the 
PLURAL  number;  that  is,  as  maxy  bishops  in  the  one 
church  at  the  same  time.  He  never  mentions  such  a 
thing  as  a  bishop  in  the  singular  number.  It  is  evident 
he  knew  nothing  of  modem  episcopacy;  nor  even  of  one 
presbyter  acting  as  chief  presbyter  in  superintending  other 
presbyters.     It  was  then  exactly  as  Jerome  says,  ^^ presby- 

*  Miscellanea  Sacra,  vol.  ii,  p.  154,  ed.  1770. 


100       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ters  ruled  the  church  in  common.^''  The  establishment  of 
a  superintendency,  by  one  presbyter  elected  by  the  other 
presbyters  to  preside  over  themselves,  took  place  "  after- 
ward"  Thus,  then,  this  most  ancient  of  all  the  primitive 
writers,  coeval  w^ith  the  apostle  John,  shows  us  that,  in 
his  day,  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  were  only  different 
names  for  the  same  office ;  and  that  bishops  and  presbyters 
were  one  and  the  same  order  of  ministers. 

Ignatius  comes  next.  Dr.  Cave  places  him  A.D,  101. 
He  is  the  greatest  authority  of  high  Churchmen.  Cardi- 
nal Baronius  also  considers  Ignatius's  Epistles  to  be  one 
of  the  bulwarks  of  the  doctrines  of  the  popedom.  Some 
care  will  be  necessary  in  examining  his  writings.  I  merely 
mention,  though  I  do  not  stand  upon  it,  that  many  profound 
scholars  seriously  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles 
which  go  under  his  name.  I  shall  only  bring  one  reason 
before  the  reader,  though  many  might  be  added.  It  is 
this  :  that  viewing  the  character  of  Ignatius  in  no  ordinary 
light  as  a  witness,  and  an  eminent  martyr  for  the  truth, 
several  parts  of  these  Epistles  are  a  powerful  reflection  on 
the  soundness  of  his  judgment,  if  not  on  the  goodness  of 
his  heart.  Such  weak,  silly  rant,  and  rhodomontade,  is 
found  running  through  them,  as  makes  a  Christian  half 
ashamed  to  own  it  as  coming  from  so  eminent  a  martyr. 
Those  who  contend  for  the  authority  of  these  Epistles, 
seem  to  me  to  prefer  the  credit  of  their  scheme  of  episco- 
pacy to  the  character  of  Ignatius  himself.  It  is  probable 
the  Epistles  were  greatly  corrupted  by  some  high  advo- 
cates of  priestly  power  and  authority.  Some  parts  of  the 
Epistles,  first  published  under  his  name,  have  been  acknow- 
ledged HERETICAL,  and  have  been  rejected  by  the  most 
learned  men  of  the  Church  of  England.  "  They  laboured 
not  only,"  says  Archbishop  Wake,  "  under  many  imperti- 
nencies  unbecoming  the  character  of  that  great  man,  but 
were  fraught  with  many  things  that  were  altogether  fabu- 
lous :  nay,  if  we  may  credit  Archbishop  Usher,  had  some 
passages  in  them  that  tended  to  corrupt  the  very  faith  of 
Christ,  in  one  of  the  most  considerable  points."*  Many 
of  the  best  continental  divines,  as  Calvin,  Salmasius,  Blon- 
del,  Albertinus,  and  Daille,  reject  the  whole.  "  The 
whole  question,"  says  Mosheim,  "  relating  to  the  Epistles 
*  Abp.  Wake's  Prel.  Disc,  sec.  17. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        101 

of  Ignatius  in  general,  seems  to  me  to  labour  under  much 
obscurity,  and  to  be  embarrassed  with  many  difficulties."* 
And  even  Archbishop  Usher,  whom  high  Churchmen  must 
allow  to  be  a  competent  and  unexceptionable  witness, 
having  mentioned  the  opinion  of  Salmasius,  that  all  the 
twelve  Epistles  are  either  counterfeits,  or  certainly  cor- 
rupted by  interpolations  in  many  places,  adds,  "  to  which 
judgment  I  willingly  subscribe  :  having  certain  proof  that 
six  of  them  are  counterfeits  ;  and  that  the  remaining  six 
are  corrupted  by  interpolations  in  very  many  places. ^^\  How- 
ever, we  will  grant  them  to  be  genuine. 

Now  two  points  w41l  be  sufficient  to  settle  with  Ignatius. 
The  first  is,  that,  whatever  he  makes  of  bishops,  he  yet 
makes  presbyters  as  high  as  we  can  desire  for  our  argu- 
ment. He  says,  the  deacon  "  is  subject  to  the  presbyters 
AS  to  the  LAW  of  Jesus  Christ ;" — "  the  presbyters  pre- 
side in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the  apostles. "j:  "  Be 
ye  SUBJECT  to  your  presbyters  as  to  the  apostles  of 
Jesus  Christ  our  hope."^  "  Let  all  reverence  the  presbyters 
as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of  apostles."  Same 
Ep.  "Being  subject  to  your  bishop  as  to  the  command 
of  God  ;  and  so  likewise  to  the  presbytery."  Id.  "  See 
that  ye  follow — the  presbyters  as  the  apostles."||  All  the 
above  passages  are  from  Archbishop  Wake's  translation. 
If  Ignatius's  authority  is  worth  any  thing,  it  proves  pres- 
byters to  be  in  the  place  of  the  apostles.  This  is  surely 
enough  for  the  most  rigid  Presbyterian. 

The  second  point  is,  that  he  says,  "  Let  no  man  do  any 
thing  of  what  belongs  to  the  church  separately  from  the 
bishops.  Let  that  eucharist  be  looked  upon  as  well 
established,  which  is  either  offered  by  the  bishop,  or  by 
him  to  whom  the  bishop  has  given  his  consent.  Where- 
soever the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  people  also 
be  ;  as  where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  catholic  church. 
It  is  NOT  lawful  without  the  bishop,  neither  to  baptize,  nor 
to  celebrate  the  holy  communion  ;  but  whatsoever  he  shall 
approve  of,  that  is  also  pleasing  unto  God ;  that  so  what- 
ever is  done,  may  be  sure  and  well  done. — He  that  does 

*  Mosheim's  Ecc.  Hist.,  cent,  i,  part  ii,  chap,  ii,  sec.  20. 
t  Usheri  Diss.,  p.  136  ;  and  see  p.  13,  ed.  Oxon,  4to.,  1644. 
+  Ep.  to  the  Magnesians.  §  Ep.  to  the  Trallians. 

Ij  Ep.  to  the  Smyrnians. 


102  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

any  thing  without  his  knowledge,  ministers  unto  the  devil. '^ 
There  is  no  stronger  passage  in  favour  of  high  Church 
episcopacy  in  his  Epistles  than  this.  The  term  translated 
"lawful,"  'E^ov  eg-L,  frequently  means  ^^ permitted, '''  as  by 
custom,  or  courtesy;  so  Acts  xxi,  37,  "May  I  speak  unto 
thee  ?"  Acts  ii,  29,  "  Men  and  brethren,  let  me  freely 
speak  unto  you,  Elov  etTceivP  Hence  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily mean  divine  law,  but  only  what  is  matter  of  custom 
or  courtesy.  The  expression,  "  Let  no  man  do  any  thing 
of  what  belongs  to  the  church  separate  from  the  bishop," 
simply  signifies,  that  where  a  superintendent  had  been 
appointed  for  the  sake  of  order,  that  order  was  to  be  kept. 
Very  right.  So  say  all  churches  where  a  superintendency 
has  been  established,  though  making-  no  pretensions  to 
divine  right  for  it.  To  suppose  the  passage  to  mean  that 
a  presbyter  absolutely  had  not  power,  by  divine  right,  to 
baptize,  to  celebrate  the  holy  communion,  nor  to  do  any 
THING  that  belongs  to  the  church,  except  the  bishop  bade 
liim,  is  absurd,  and  is  confuted  by  Ignatius  himself;  for  he 
says,  "  the  presbyters  are  in  the  place  of  the  apostles." 
Surely  men  that  are  the  "  sanhedrim  of  God  and  the  college 
of  the  apostles'*^  have  divine  authority  to  baptize,  &c.,  when 
occasion  should  require  it,  whether  the  bishop  bade  them 
or  not.  Indeed,  fifty  places  might  be  quoted  from  coun- 
cils, and  better  writers  than  the  author  of  these  Epistles, 
where  this  mode  of  expression  means  nothing  but  human 
arrangement.  We  find  bishops  themselves  forbid  by  a 
council  to  do  certain  things  without  the  archbishop.-^  Is  the 
order  of  archbishops,  then,  by  divine  right  also  ?  These 
advocates  will  not  say  so.  *'  No  bishop  was  to  be  elected 
or  ordained,"  says  Bingham,  "  without  their  (the  metro- 
politans') consent  and  approbation ;  otherwise  the  canons 
pronounce  both  the  election  and  the  ordination  null. "J 
What  will  our  high  Churchmen  make  of  this — a  matter 
determined  by  the  authority  of  hundreds  of  bishops  in 
council  ?  Will  they  say  it  has  divine  right  ?  Then  num- 
bers of  the  English  bishops*  ordinations  were  null  ab 
initio :  for  they  frequently  were  not  ordained  by  their  me- 
tropolitan, nor  with  his  consent.     Nay,  it  will  destroy 

*  Ep.  ad  Smyrn.,  sec.  8. 

t  See  the  Council  of  Antioch,  (90  bishops,)  A.D.  3.41,  can.  9. 

X  Bingham,  b.  ii,  chap,  xvi,  sec.  13. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        103 

Archbishop  Parker's  ordination,  upon  which  all  the 
ordinations  of  the  present  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  Church 
of  England  depend.  For  the  canons  require  a  metropoli- 
tan to  be  ordained  by  his  patriarch,  or,  at  least,  by  all  the 
bishops  of  his  province.  Now  Parker  was  ordained  by 
neither,  but  against  the  consent  of  the  first,  and  only  by 
three  or  four,  if  any,  of  the  last,  many  of  the  rest  being 
opposed  to  his  ordination. 

Even  bishops  were  not  allowed  to  do  any  thing  of  im- 
portance WITHOUT  ihe  presbyters.  Bishop  Overall  himself 
affirms  this  in  his  letters  to  Grotius,*  "  Notum  est  antiqui- 
tus,  NIHIL  majoris  momenti  episcopum  sine  concilio  sni 
presbyterii  fecisse — It  is  a  known  matter  that  anciently  the 
bishop  did  nothing  of  moment  without  his  council  of 
presbyters."  So  Cyprian  apologizes  for  ordaining  only  a 
subdeacon  without  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  Ep.  24. 
•  But  Ignatius  says,  "  Whatever  the  bishops  shall  ap- 
prove of,  that  is  also  2^l6asi?2g  to  God^  Now  it  is  clear 
that  he  makes  the  power  or  authority  of  the  bishop  in  re- 
straining and  in  permitting  to  be  equal.  Whatever  he 
could  prohibit  the  presbyters  from  doing,  he  could  equally 
appoint  and  approve  of  their  doing  the  same  thing.  He 
could  restrain  them  from  baptizing,  and  he  could  appoint 
them  to  baptize.  His  authority  in  both  respects  was  equal. 
Apply  this  to  ordaining  ministers.  Suppose  he  could 
restrain  presbyters  from  ordaining ;  he  could  equally  ap- 
point them  to  ordain  ministers  ;  and  then  their  performance 
of  this  duty  "  would  be  pleasing  to  God."  Then  pres- 
byters, as  presbyters,  have  as  much  inherent  power  to 
ordain,  as  they  have  to  baptize,  or  to  do  any  thing  else 
in  the  church.  This  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  Ignatius. 
Now  all  Churchmen  allow  they  have  the  power  and  au- 
thority as  presbyters  to  baptize.  They  have,  therefore, 
from  the  principles  of  Ignatius,  power  and  authority  to  or- 
dain ministers,  to  coifirm,  &c.,  as  much  as  bishops  have. 
The  only  difference  was,  that  for  the  honour  of  the  bishop, 
and  by  ecclesiastic  arrangement,  they  were  not  to  do 
these  things  without  the  permission  of  the  bishop. 

Hence,  then,  even  Ignatius  says  nothing  to  prove  high 
Church  episcopacy  of  divine  right  ;  but  the  contrary, 
that  '■''presbyters  are  in  the  place  of  the  apostles,^''    "  the 

*  EpistoIcB  Prcestantium  Virorum,  p.  460,  ed.  secund. 


104        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

college  of  the  apostles,''^  "  the  sanhedrim  of  God"  Stil- 
lingfleet  says,  "  In  all  those  thirty-five  testimonies  produced 
out  of  Ignatius's  Epistles  for  episcopacy,  I  can  meet  with 
but  one  which  is  brought  to  prove  the  least  semblance  of 
an  institution  of  Christ  for  episcopacy ;  and  if  I  be  not 
much  deceived,  the  sense  of  that  place  is  clearly  mistaken 
too."*  The  bishop,  as  superintendent,  for  the  sake  of 
ORDER,  had,  by  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  the  oversight  of 
all,  and  authority  to  regulate  the  administration  of  the  af- 
fairs of  the  church.  So  have  the  Lutheran  superintendents  ; 
so  have  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  superintendents  :  but  they 
and  all  the  other  ministers  of  those  churches  are  equal  by 
divine  right.     So  were  all  the  ministers  in  Ignatius's  time. 

Polycarp  was  contemporary  with  Ignatius.  There  is 
extant  an  Epistle  under  his  name  ;  having  much  greater 
marks  of  genuineness  and  purity  than  any  of  those  under 
the  name  of  Ignatius  :  indeed,  there  appears  no  reasonable 
ground  of  objection  against  it.  He  commences  by  saying, 
"  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters  that  are  with  him,  to  the 
church  of  God,  which  is  at  Philippi."  He  exhorts  them 
to  be  "  subject  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  unto  God 
and  Christ."  He  never  once  mentions  such  a  word  as 
bishop  from  the  commencement  to  the  conclusion.  How 
different  this  from  the  episcopal  mania  of  the  pseudo- 
Ignatius  !  How  different,  too,  from  what  would  be  the 
style  of  modern  Episcopalians  !  Would  a  modern  bishop 
write  to  the  church  or  diocess  of  another  bishop,  and  yet 
never  mention  such  a  term  as  bishop?  No  such  thing. 
This  proves,  along  with  a  thousand  other  things  of  the 
same  character,  which  for  brevity's  sake  we  omit,  that 
modern  episcopacy,  leaving  out  of  question  divine  right, 
has  no  resemblance  to  the  government  of  the  church  in 
the  days  of  Clement  and  Polycarp. 

Justin  Martyr  flourished  about  A.  D.  155.  The  most 
celebrated  passage  in  his  Works,  relating  to  the  present 
question,  is  in  his  Apology,  from  c.  85  to  88,  The  presi- 
dent of  the  Christian  assembly  he  denominates  Trpoer^f .  In 
these  chapters,  this  term,  and  this  only,  as  designating  the 
minister,  occurs  six  times :  neither  the  term  bishop  nor 
presbyter  is  used  at  all.  The  word  simply  means  a  pre- 
sident. Reeves,  the  translator  of  Justin,  a  Churchman, 
*  Iren.  309. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        105 

and  who  loses  no  opportunity  of  opposing  sectarians, 
allows,  in  his  notes  on  the  passage,  that  the  ivgoeg-wg  of 
Justin,  the  prohati  seniores  of  TertuUian,  the  majores  natu, 
in  Cyprian's  Works,  (Ep.  75,)  and  the  Trgoeg-direg  rrgea- 
(ivregoL,  or  presiding  presbyters,  of  St.  Paul,  (1  Tim. 
iv,  17,)  were  all  one  and  the  same.  Now  TertuUian, 
Cyprian,  (or  rather  Firmilian,  the  celebrated  bishop  of 
Cesarea,  in  Cappadocia,)  and  St.  Paul,  all  mean  presby- 
ters. Their  language  cannot  be  otherwise  interpreted 
without  Adolence.  "  Presbyter,"  says  Bishop  Jewel,*  "  is 
expounded  in  Latin  by  natu  major  "f  The  bishop  was, 
doubtless,  included  in  the  presbyter ;  they  were  both  one. 
Indeed,  Irenaeus,  in  an  Epistle  to  Victor,  called  in  later 
days  bishop  of  Rome,  thus  addresses  him,  (circa,  A.  D. 
200,)  "  The  PRESBYTERS  who,  before  Soter,  presided 
over  that  church  which  you  now  govern,— I  mean  Anicetus 
and  Pius,  Hyginus,  Telesphorus,  and  Xystus."  Here  this 
ancient  and  celebrated  writer  expressly  calls  those  persons 
presiding  presbyters,  whom  later  writers  call  bishops 
of  Rome.  This  demonstrates  that  the  president  in  each 
Christian  church,  in  the  time  of  Justin,  was  a  presbyter. 

Ireneeus  flourished  about  Ann.  Dom.  184.  He  mentions 
both  presbyter  and  bishop,  but  he  uses  them  synonymously . 
Some  persons  who  have  only  seen  the  partial  quotations 
of  high  Church  succession  divines  may  doubt  my  asser- 
tion. However,  they  shall  judge  for  themselves,  and  then 
decide  what  opinion  they  can  have  of  the  fairness  of  these 
writers.  These  divines  have  generally  quoted  Irenseus 
about  the  succession  of  bishops,  as  though  he  meant  a 
succession   of  bishops,   by  divine  right,  and   of  bishops 

*  "  If  ye  [Mr.  Harding]  had  been  either  so  sagely  studied  as  ye 
pretend,  and  your  friends  have  thought,  ye  might  soon  have  learned 
that  presbyter'or  priest  is  nothing  else  but  senior,  that  is,  an  elder,  and 
that  a  priest  and  an  elder  are  both  one  thing.  And  therefore,  whereas 
St.  Paul  saith  :  Adversus  presbyterum  accusationem  ne  admiseris,  St. 
Cyprian,  translating  the  same,  saith  thus  :  Adversus  majorem  natu  ac- 
cusationem ne  reciperis.  Your  own  Doctor  Thomas  Aquina  saith  : 
Presbyter  Graece,  Latine  senior,  interpretatur.  St.  Hierome  saith : 
Idem  est  presbyter  qui  episcopus.  These  two  words,  Tvpea^vr epog, 
rrpealivTaTog,  are  expounded  in  Latin,  natu  major,  natu  maximus, 
1  Tim.  v.  Cyprian  ad  Quirin,  lib.  iii,  cap.  76.  Thom.  Secund.  Se- 
cunda,  quest.  184,  art.  6,  dist.  24,  Cleros.  Hieron.  ad  1  Tit.  c.  i."— Bp. 
Jewel's  Defence  of  the  Apology,  part  vi,  p.  527,  fol.  ed.,  1609. 

t  Defence  of  the  Apology,  part  vi,  p.  527,  fol.  ed.,  1689. 
5* 


106        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ALONE  as  successors  of  the  apostles.  Let  us  hear  him  on 
the  other  side.  He  is,  in  the  following  passage,  speaking 
of  some  who  left  the  Scripture,  and  pretended  tradition  for 
their  errors.  "  But,"  says  he,  "  when  we  appeal  to  that 
tradition  which  has  been  preserved  to  us  by  the  succes- 
sions of  PRESBYTERS  in  the  churches — qucB  per  succes- 
siONES  presbyterorum  in  ecclesiis  custoditur — they 
presume  they  are  wiser  not  only  than  the  presbyters,  but 
even  than  the  apostles,  and  that  they  have  found  the  truth 
in  a  purer  form."*  In  the  next  chapter  he  calls  this  succes- 
sion the  succession  of  bishops,  which,  as  it  is  agreed  on 
both  sides,  we  need  not  quote.  In  the  very  celebrated 
Epistle,  above  mentioned,  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  he 
speaks  of  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Telesphonis,  and  Xys- 
tus,  presiding  as  presbyters  over  the  Church  of  Rome ; 
though  these  persons,  by  later  writers,  are  all  reckoned  as 
bishops  of  Rome.  These  presbyters  are  all,  even  by  Pa- 
pists and  high  Churchmen,  put  as  links  into  the  succession 
chaiii :  they  have  no  chain  without  them.  He  repeats  the 
same  mode  of  speaking  of  these  presiding  presbyters  three 
times  over  in  this  letter,  though  a  short  one,  and  never 
uses  any  other ;  never  calls  them  bishops.  He  uses  the 
word  bishops  as  to  the  Asiatics,  but  not  as  to  the  Romans  ; 
which  would  almost  lead  one  to  think  that  the  term  pres- 
byter, at  Rome,  in  that  age,  was  still  considered  the  most 
honourable  denomination,  as  it  certainly  seems  to  have  been 
in  the  apostles'  days,  and  for  some  time  after.  For  what 
provincial  bishop  would  write  to  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, and,  referring  him  to  half  a  dozen  of  his  predeces- 
sors in  that  see,  would  yet  never  call  them  any  thing  but 
presbyters,  except  he  thought  the  title  was  the  most  hon- 
ourable one  ?  "  Would  not  any  man  now  bee  deemed 
rude  and  saucy,  who  should  talk  in  that  style"  to  the  arch- 
bishop ?t  Again,  "  Wherefore  obedience  ought  to  be  ren- 
dered to  those  who  are  presbyters  in  the  church,  who 
have,  as  we  have  shown,  succession  from  the  apostles,  and 
who,  WITH  the  succession  of  their  episcopacy,  have  a 
sure  deposite  of  the  truth  divinely  granted  to  them  accord- 
ing to  the  good  pleasure  of  our  heavenly  Father. "J  These 
are  said  to  be  presbyters,  that  is,  properly  such,  "  qui  in  eccle- 

*  Lib.  3,  c.  2.       t  Barrow's  Supremacy,  supp.  v,  p.  167,  4to.  1610. 
t  Lib.  4,  c.  43. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        107 

sta  SUNT  PRESBYTERi."  But  thesG  preshyters  have  the 
true  apostolical  succession,  and,  as  presbyters,  have  episco- 
pacy ;  that  is,  preside  over  the  church,  rule  the  church  in 
common.  In  the  next  chapter,  speaking  still  of  presbyters 
as  presiding  over  the  church,  he  tells  us  that  we  ought  to 
FORSAKE  those  who  were  wicked,  though  they  held  the 
chief  seat,  and  that  we  ought  to  cleave  to  those  who  joined 
purity  of  doctrine  to  holiness  of  life  :  "  Now  those  who  are 
by  many  received  as  presbyters,  yet  serving  their  own 
lusts,  and  not  having  the  fear  of  God  before  them ;  but, 
being  puffed  up  with  the  chief  seats,  (principalis  consessio,) 
use  others  with  contumely,  and  say  to  themselves,  '  None 
see  the  evils  we  do  in  secret ;'  these  are  reproved  by  the 
Lord,  who  judges,  not  according  to  glor^'ing  appearances, 
but  according  to  the  heart.  From  all  such  we  ought  to 
DEPART,  and  to  cleuve  to  those  who  preserve,  as  we  have 
said,  the  doctrixe  of  the  apostles,  and,  along  with  their 
order  of  presbyter,  maintain  sound  words  ;  and  show,  for 
the  instruction  and  correction  of  others,  an  irreproachable 
conversation.  The  church  will  nourish  such  preshyters ; 
of  whom  also  the  prophet  (Isa.  Ix,  17)  speaks, '  I  will  give 
thy  princes  in  peace,  and  thy  bishops  in  righteousness.' 
Of  whom  also  the  Lord  spake,  '  Who,  therefore,  is  a  good 
and  wise  servant,  whom  his  Lord  shall  place  over  his 
household,''''  &c.*  AYhat  can  be  clearer  than  that  Irenseus 
here  speaks  of  presbyters  and  bishops  as  the  same  ?  He 
says,  the  prophet  spake  of  these  presbyters  when  he  said, 
"  I  will  give  thy  bishops,''  &c.  Presbyters  and  bishops, 
therefore,  with  Irenaeus,  were  the  same  order,  and  equally 
successors  of  the  apostles. 

One  point  more  Irenaeus  will  help  us  to  rectify.  The 
high  Church  divines  quote  him  as  though  he  meant  that  a 
succession  of  persons,  viz.,  of  bishops,  according  to  their 
views,  was  absolutely  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
Christianity  and  its  ordinances.  We  shall  see  that  he 
means  no  such  thing.  He  says,  as  above,  we  are  to  leave 
those  ministers  who  leave  the  truth,  notwithstandinor  their 
pretence  to  personal  succession.  What  he  principally 
aims  at  is  this,  to  prove  an  uncorrupted  tradition,  succes- 
sion, or  delivering  down  of  apostolical  truth,  faith,  and 
holiness  to  succeeding  generations ;  and  he  uses  the  argu- 
*  Lib.  iv,  cap.  44. 


108        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

merit  of  a  succession  of  ministers,  called  indifferently  preS' 
hyters  and  bishops,  to  prove  the  succession  of  truth  against 
the  monstrous  heresies  of  his  day,  in  which  the  Scriptures 
were  denied  or  corrupted;  just  as  we  use  now,  against 
infidels,  the  uninterrupted  and  uncorrupted  tradition  of  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  and  Scripture  truth  to  the  pre- 
sent day.  Accordingly,  Irenaeus  says,  "  We  cannot  know 
the  plan  of  salvation,  any  otherwise  than  by  those  persons 
through  whom  the  gospel  has  come  down  to  us.  This 
they  first  proclaimed  by  their  personal  ministry.  After- 
ward they  delivered  the  will  of  God  to  us  in  their  divinely 
inspired  writings,  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  were  hence- 
forward to  be  the  foundation  and  pillar  of  our  faith."* 
The  heretics  shuffled  to  avoid  the  force  of  this.  "  When 
we  argue  from  the  Scriptures,  they  (the  heretics)  accuse 
the  Scriptures  as  not  having  the  right  doctrine,  neither  as 
su^cient  authority ;  that  they  contain  views  so  diverse  that 
they  cannot  he  understood  by  those  who  are  ignorant  of 
tradition." — How  like  Popery,  Dr.  Hook,  and  the  Ox- 
ford Tract-men ! — He  then  recites  some  of  the  ravings  of 
the  heretics,  and  says,  "  Such  are  the  persons  against 
whom  we  contend  ;  persons  whom  nothing  can  hold,  but 
who  wriggle,  like' serpents,  into  every  form,  to  escape  from 
the  grasp  of  truth.  Wherefore,  we  must  use  evrry  mode 
of  arguing  against  them,  that,  being  confounded  with  the 
discovery  of  their  errors,  we  may,  if  possible,  convert  them 
to  the  truth."!  The  personal  succession  of  ministers,  (pres- 
byters and  bishops  he  calls  them  indifferently,)  in  the 
Christian  church,  was  one  mode  of  argument.  This  was 
secondary  and  auxiliary  to  another,  which  was  the  succes- 
sion of  the  doctrine  of  Christian  truth,  the  succession  of  the 
true  faith.  Hear  the  great  Protestant  champion,  Whit- 
aker,  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth,  speaking  of  the  succession 
maintained  by  the  early  fathers,  Irenaeus,  &c. :  "  Faith, 
therefore,  is  as  it  were  the  soul  of  this  succession,  which 
being  wanting,  a  naked  succession  of  persons  is  as  a  dead 
body.  The  fathers,  indeed,  always  much  more  regarded 
the  succession  of  faith  than  any  unbroken  series  of  men."| 
Irenaeus  first  remarks  that  the  apostles  taught  no  such  de- 
lirious tenets  as  the  heretics  held,  nor  any  secret  doctrines. 

*  Lib.  iii,  c.  L  t  Lib.  iii,  c.  2. 

t  Whitakeri  0pp.,  vol.  i,  p.  506,  ed.  Gen.,  1610. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        109 

"  Then,"  he  saith,  "  the  Christian  church  at  Rome  pos- 
sessed this*  tradition  of  the  truth  by  the  apostles,  according 
to  the  faith  preached  hy  them ;  and  proceeds  to  confirm  this 
statement  by  mentioning  the  succession  of  ministers  in  that 
church  :  "  We  shall  declare  that  which  was  delivered  from 
the  apostles,  which  the  Church  of  Rome  possesses,  the 
FAITH  they  preached  to  mankind ;  and  which  has  come 
down  to  us  through  a  succession  of  bishops  reaching  to  the 
present  time."t  Here  a  succession  of  persons  is  made 
auxiliary  to  the  main  point,  the  succession  of  faith.  We 
allow  this  argument  its  full  weight.  Where  a  real  suc- 
cession of  faithful  ministers  has  existed,  it  is  one  mode  of 
proving  the  true  faith.  But  does  Irenaeus  say  that  there  is 
no  other  mode,  that  no  churches  have  the  faith  who  have 
not  this  succession  ?  He  never  says  so.  He  says,  "  the 
Scriptures  are  henceforward,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
to  be  the  pillar  ar\d  ground  of  our  faith.'"%  Does  he  say 
that  all  are  to  be  received  as  true  ministers  who  are  in  the 
succession  ?  No.  He  tells  us  we  are  to  forsake  those 
whose  lives  are  wicked,  and  to  cleave  to  the  good. 

Tertullian  flourished  about  A.  D.  198.  Many  readers 
know  that  he  is  quoted  with  as  much  triumph  by  the  suc- 
cession divines  as  though  it  were  impossible  for  us  to  find 
any  thing  in  Tertullian  to  prove  the  identity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  or  against  their  doctrine  of  succession.     Let  us 

*  The  reader  will  see  the  importance  of  keeping  in  mind  the  differ- 
ence between  tradition,  as  matter  of  unwritten  report,  and  tradition 
as  the  coyiveying  from  age  to  age  of  a  written  word.  The  first  kind 
of  tradition  is  necessarily  confused  and  uncertain  ;  it  is  not  in  human 
nature  to  prevent  it.  The  second  kind  is  capable  of  the  utmost  cer- 
tainty that  historic  evidence  can  give,  and  that  human  language  can 
communicate.*  Now  it  was  the  first  kind  of  tradition,  oral  tradition, 
unwritten  report,  that  the  heretics  pretended  was  to  be  the  rule  of  in- 
terpreting the  Scriptures :  so  do  the  Papists  and  high  Church  divines 
•  generally.  The  second  kind  of  tradition,  that  is,  the  conveying  down 
from  generation  to  generation  the  truth  of  God,  and  the  faith  preached 
by  the  apostles,  by  conveying  the  written  record  of  this  faith,  em- 
phatically the  Scriptures, — this  is  the  tradition  of  the  primitive 
church ;  this  is  the  tradition  of  Protestantism.  Popery,  and  semi- 
popery,  in  all  their  ramifications,  are  founded  on  oral  tradition,  unicrit- 
ten  report;  and  are  full  of  uncertainty  and  confusion.  True  Pro- 
testantism is  founded  on  the  Scriptures,  the  written  record  of  God's 
will,  and  has,  in  its  mode  of  communication  and  interpretation,  the 
utmost  possible  clearness  and  certainty. 

t  Lib.  iii,  c.  3.  X  Lib.  iii,  c.  3. 


110        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

examine  Tertullian.  In  the  work  usually  quoted  on  this 
subject,  he  writes  against  the  heretics,  such  as  those  re- 
ferred to  by  Irenaeus.  He  is  designing  to  show,  that  what 
is  first  in  doctrine  is  the  truth ;  and  that  the  heresies  he 
opposes  sprung  up  after  the  apostles'  times,  and  were, 
therefore,  extraneous  and  false  :  "  But  if  any  of  the  here- 
tics dare  to  connect  themselves  with  the  apostolic  age,  that 
they  may  seem  to  be  derived  from  the  apostles,  as  existing 
under  them,  we  may  say,  '  Let  them,  therefore,  declare  the 
origin  of  their  churches ;  let  them  exhibit  the  series  of  their 
bishops,  so  coming  down  by  a  continued  succession  from  the 
beginning,  as  to  show  their  first  bishop  to  have  had  some 
apostle  or  apostolical  man  as  his  predecessor  or  ordainer, 
and  who  continued  in  the  same  faith  with  the  apostles? 
For  this  is  the  way  in  v/hich  the  apostolical  churches  cal- 
culate the  series  of  their  bishops.''*  This  passage  is  the 
triumph  of  succession  divines.  Now,  that  a  succession  of 
ministers  was  rightly  urged  against  those  who,  by  rejecting 
or  corruj)ting  the  Scriptures,  introduced  into  the  Chris- 
tian church  the  wildest  ravings,  such  as  the  Cerinthians, 
the  Valentinians,  Basiiidians,  &c.,  we  have  shown  in  our 
observations  on  Irenaeus;  to  which  place  we  request  the 
reader  to  refer,  as  the  subject  is  the  same  in  both  authors. 
But  is  this  all  Tertullian  says  about  the  rule  of  faith, 
in  opposition  to  heretics  ?  The  reader  shall  judge  of  the 
conduct  of  those  who  would  lead  others  to  believe  it  to  be 
so.  Within  half-a-dozen  lines  of  the  passage  above  quoted, 
he  shows  that  he  only  meant  this  personal  succession  as 
one  mode  of  showing  the  biain  point,  viz.,  the  succession  of 
apostolical  faith  :  "But  if  the  \iQxei\Q,s  feign  ov  fabricate 
such  a  succession,  this  will  not  help  them:  For  their 
DOCTRINE  itself,  compared  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles, 
will,  by  its  own  diversity  and  contrariety,  pronounce 
against  them,  that  it  had  not,  as  its  author,  either,  any 
apostle  or  apostolical  man  ;  for  as  there  was  no  difference 
among  the  apostles  in  their  doctrine,  so  neither  did  any 
apostolical  men  teach  any  thing  contrary  to  them ;  except 
those  who  divided  from  the  apostles,  and  preached 
DIFFERENTLY.  To  THIS  FORM  of  trial  wiU  appeal  be 
made  by  those  churches  henceforward  daily  established, 

*  De  Prescript.,  c,  32. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        Ill 

which,  though  they  have  neither  any  of  tlie  apostles  nor 
any  apostolical  men  for  their  founders,  yet  all  agreeing  in 
the  SAME  FAITH,  are,  from  this  consanguinity  of  doc- 
trine, to  be  esteemed  not  less  apostolical  than  the 
former.  Therefore  our  churches  having  appealed  to  both 
forms  of  proving  themselves  to  be  apostolical,  let  the 
heretics  show  some  form  by  which  they  can  prove  the 
same.  But  they  cannot  show  this  ;  for  it  does  not  exist : 
therefore  they  are  not  received  into  communion  by  those 
churches  which  are  every  icay  apostolical,  for  this  rea- 
son, because  of  the  difference  of  their  faith,  which  is 
in  no  sense  apostolical."  O!  Tertullian,  this  is  hard! 
What !  will  not  a  succession  of  bishops  help  us  at  all, 
without  a  succession  of  the  faith  taught  by  the  apostles  1 
So  he  says.  But  what  is  a  heavier  stroke  still,  he  says 
the  succession  of  faith  alone  will  make  a  church  equally 
apostolical  as  those  who  have  the  succession  of  faith  and 
the  succession  of  persons  too.  This  is  death  to  the 
scheme  of  our  high  Church  divines.  He  has  much  more 
to  the  same  purpose  in  this  very  treatise  : — "  What  if  a 
bishop,  or  a  deacon,  or  a  widow,  or  a  virgin,  or  a  doctor 
in  the  church,  or  a  confessor,  shall  have  fallen  from  the 
faith,  shall  heresy  hy  them  obtain  the  authority  of  the  truth  ? 
What !  do  we  prove  faith  by  persons,  and  not  rather 
PERSONS  by  the  faith  ?"  c.  3.  "  Our  Lord  instructs  us 
that  many  ravening  wolves  will  be  found  in  sheep's  cloth- 
ing. Who  are  these  ravening  wolves,  except  deceitful 
workers,  that  lurk  in  the  church  to  infest  the  flock  of 
Christ  ?  Who  are  false  prophets,  but  false  preachers  ? 
Who  are  false  apostles,  except  those  who  preach  an  adul- 
terated gospel  ?"  c.  4.  Hear  this,  ye  semi-popish  suc- 
cession divines !  who  frequently  preach  for  doctrine  the 
commandments  of  men,  and  make  void  the  law  of  God  by 
your  doctrine  of  traditions.  But  to  proceed  with  Tertul- 
lian on  the  succession  of  faith  :  "  Immediately  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  the  twelve  apostles,  which  by  interpreta- 
tion means  missionaries,  first  having  preached  ihe  faith  to 
the  churches  throughout  Judea,  then  went  into  the  whole 
world,  publishing  the  very  same  doctrine  of  the  same  faith 
to  the  nations  of  the  earth.  Churches  were  established 
in  every  city  by  the  apostles  ;  from  which  churches  the 
succession  of  faith,  and  the  seeds  of  doctrine,  were 


il2        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

derived  to  other  churches ;  and  daily  continue  to  be  derived, 
to  GIVE  them  existence  as  churches.  And  by  this  pro- 
cess these  succeeding  churches  will  he  esteemed  apostoli- 
cal, as  the  offspring  of  apostolical  churches."  Here  the 
reader  sees  again  it  is  faith,  and  faith  only,  that  is,  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  which  constitutes  the  essen- 
tial CHARACTER  of  a  Christian  church.  Again,  "I  am  an 
heir  of  the  apostles.  As  they  provided  for  me  as  by  will, 
committing  the  same  to  the  faith,  and  establishing  it  as  by 
OATH,  so  I  hold  it.  But  they  have  disinherited  you  heretics, 
and  cast  you  out  as  aliens  and  enemies  :  but  whence  are 
heretics  aliens  and  enemies  to  the  apostles  ?  it  is  by  oppo- 
sition of  doctrine."  C,  37. 

But  what  says  Tertullian  about  the  order  of  bishops  by 
divine  right  ?  You  shall  hear  ;  "  The  highest  priest,  who 
is  the  bishop,  has  the  right  of  administering  baptism. 
Then  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  yet  not  without  the 
authority  of  the  bishop,  because  of  the  honour  of  the 
church."  Well,  (our  opponents  will  reason,)  here,  at 
least,  bishops  are  high  priests  ;  now  the  high  priest  was 
an  order  by  divine  right  superior  to  the  other  priests  ;  it 
follows,  then,  bishops  are  a  divine  order  above  presbyters. 
Besides,  presbyters  can  do  nothing  without  the  bishop's 
authority.  What  can  be  more  decisive  ?  So  triumph  our 
high  Churchmen  from  tliis  passage.  Their  triumph  shall 
be  short.  They  have  not  generally  the  honesty  to  quote 
the  very  next  words,  as  this  would  spoil  all  in  a  moment. 
We  will  give  the  v/hole  passage  :  "  The  highest  priest, 
who  is  the  bishop,  has  the  right  of  administering  baptism. 
Then  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  yet  not  luithout  the  autho- 
rity of  the  bishops,  because  of  the  honour  of  the  church. 
This  being  preserved,  peace  is  preserved.  Otherwise 
the  right  belongs  even  to  laymen.  However,  the  laity 
ought  especially  to  submit  humbly  and  modestly  to  the 
discipline  or  ecclesiastical  regulations  of  the  church  in  these 
matters,  and  not  assume  the  office  of  the  bishop,  seeing 
their  superiors,  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  submit  to  the 
same.  Emulation  is  the  mother  of  divisions.  '  All 
things  are  lawful  to  me,'  said  the  most  holy  Paul,  'but 
all  things  are  not  expedient.'  Let  it  suffice  that  you  use 
your  liberty  in  cases  of  necessity,  when  the  condition  of 
the  person,  or  the  circumstances  of  time  or  place  compel 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        113 

you  to  it."*  This  is  too  plain  to  need  comment.  To  pre- 
vent di\asions,  as  Jerome  says,  to  secure  the  peace  of  the 
church  by  taking  away  emulation,  the  mother  of  divisions, 
Tertullian  shows,  one  presbyter  was  placed  over  the  rest, 
as  the  highest  priest,  that  is,  the  highest  presbyter  :  and 
yet  by  no  divine  right :  all,  even  laymen  have,  he  says, 
"  the  RIGHT."  His  words  are,  "  Alioquin  etiam  laicis  jus 
estP  This  is  enough  for  our  present  argument,  and,  with 
other  bearings  of  his  words,  we,  at  present,  have  nothing 
to  do. 

In  his  most  celebrated  work,  his  Apology,  while  de- 
scribing the  order  and  government  of  the  church,  he  says, 
"  President  prohati  quique  sexiores,  &c.  Approved 
elders  or  presbyters  preside  among  us  ;  having  received 
that  honour  not  by  money,  but  hy  the  suffrages  of  their 
hrethren"  cap.  39. f  Reeves,  who  was,  as  has  been  re- 
marked, a  rigid  Churchman,  in  his  note  on  the  place,  says, 
"  The  presiding  elders  here  are  undoubtedly  the  same  with 
the  ILgoeg-G)^  in  Justin  MartjT."  (Vid.  p.  105  of  this 
Essay.)  Here  the  presbyters  preside.  One  as  primus 
presbyter,  as  the  highest  priest  or  highest  presbyter,  was, 
by  the  suffrages  of  his  brethren,  appointed  or  ordained  to 
preside  over  the  rest;  and,  for  distinction's  sake,  was 
called  bishop.  So  in  another  very  noted  passage  in  his 
Praescriptions  against  Heretics,  he  speaks  of  the  apos- 
tolical churches  "  over  which  the  apostolical  chairs 
still  presided."  The  order  was  usual,  in  the  meetings  of 
ministers  in  the  primitive  church,  for  the  ministers'  chairs 
to  be  set  in  a  semi-circle.  The  middle  chair  was  raised  a 
little  above  the  rest.  The  highest  presbyter  or  priest  sat 
in  this,  and  the  other  presbyters  or  priests  sat  round  him. 
The  deacons  w^ere  never  allowed  chairs  ;  they  always 
stood.  I  mention  the  fact  without  justifying  it.  Now 
these  were  the  chairs  Tertullian  means.  The  presbyters 
sat  in  them,  and  thus  in  council  presided  over  the  church  in 
common.     So  says  Jerome,  "  The  church  was  governed  by 

*  De  Baptisrao,  c.  17. 

t  "  Seniores  are,  in  the  Greek  language,  called  presbyters,"  says 
the  learned  Popish  ecclesiastical  historian,  Cabassutius.  Notitia  Eccle., 
p.  53.  Indeed  this  is,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  direct  and  proper  sense. 
Scapula  says,  "  7rpea[3vTepog,  senior  :"  Schrevelius  :  "  Tvpea^vrepoQ, 
presbyter,  senior:"  and  Suicer:  ''  TrpeafSwepog,  id  est,  senior." 


114       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  common  council  of  the  presbyters.''^  Here,  then,  pres- 
byters are  apostolical  successors,  sit  in  apostolical  chairs, 
and  are  the  same  order  with  bishops. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  flourished  about  A.  D.  204.  He 
says  but  httle  that  bears  on  the  subject  before  us.  A  pas- 
sage in  the  sixth  book  of  his  Stromata  is  sometimes  re- 
ferred to  as  supporting  high  Church  episcopacy ;  but  a 
close  examination  of  it  will  show  that  it  supports  nothing 
of  the  kind.  He  tells  his  reader,  in  the  beginning  of  this 
book,  that  his  design  in  it,  and  in  the  seventh,  is  to  de- 
scribe the  true  "  Gnostic,^''  or  the  perfect  man.  He  pro- 
perly begins  by  showing,  that  he  must  be  like  God.  He 
thus  proceeds  : — "  Seeing  God  is  indeed  the  good  Parent, 
bo  is  permanently  and  immutably  engaged  in  beneficence. 
Inactive  goodness  is  no  goodness  :  true  goodness  is  certain 
to  be  engaged  in  acts  of  goodness.  He  therefore  who 
having  subdued  his  passions,  and  having  attained  true 
self-denial,  daily  practices  with  increasing  success  true 
beneficence :  he  is  a  perfect  Gnostic,  and  is  equal  to  angels. 
Thus  shining  as  the  sun  in  acts  of  goodness,  he  sedulously 
proceeds  by  true  knowledge,  and  the  love  of  God,  like  the 
apostles,  to  the  mansion  of  holiness.  The  apostles  were 
not  chosen  as  apostles  because  of  any  natural  excellence 
or  inherent  virtue  of  theirs  ;  for  Judas  was  elected  along 
with  the  rest :  but  they  were  elected  by  Him  who  saw 
the  end  from  the  beginning.  Matthias  was  not  elected 
with  the  rest,  yet  when  he  had  shown  himself  worthy  to 
be  an  apostle,  he  was  appointed  in  the  place  of  Judas. 
Hence  it  follows,  also,  that  those  now  who  walk  in  the 
Saviour's  commandments,  living  as  perfect  Gnostics  ac- 
cording to  the  gospel,  shall  be  enrolled  among  the  apostles. 
He  is  truly  a  presbyter  of  the  church,  and  he  is  a  true 
deacon  or  servant  of  the  will  of  God,  who  does  and 
teaches  what  God  has  commanded,  and  not  he  who  has 
been  ordained  by  the  imjjosition  of  hands :  neither  is  a 
presbyter  counted  a  righteous  man,  because  he  is  a  pres- 
byter, but  a  righteous  man,  because  he  is  a  righteous  man, 
is  enrolled  in  the  true  presbytery  :  and  though  upon  earth 
he  be  not  honoured  with  sitting  in  the  first  throne,  yet  he 
shall  sit  on  those  /b?^r  and  twenty  thrones  judging  the  peo- 
ple, as  John  speaks  in  the  Revelation.  There  is  only  one 
covenant  of  salvation,  coming  down  from  the  creation  of 


Ox\  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  115 

the  world,  through  different  ages  and  generations,  in  various 
modes  of  administration.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  there 
is  only  one  unchangeable  salvation,  given  by  one  and  the 
same  God,  and  applied  by  one  and  the  same  Lord,  (Jesus , 
Christ,)  according  to  different  dispensations.  For  which 
cause  the  middle  wall  that  separated  the  Jews  from  the 
Gentiles  has  been  taken  away,  that  so  of  twain  he  might 
make  one  peculiar  people  ;  and  that  they  both  might  come 
to  a  unity  of  faith  ;  both  have  one  and  the  same  election. 
And  of  the  elect,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  those  are 
more  particularly  so,  who,  according  to  this  perfect  know- 
ledge, have  been  gathered  from  the  church  on  earth,  and 
honoured  with  the  magnificent  glory  of  sitting  on  the  four 
and  twenty  thrones,  as  judges  and  administrators,  in  that 
assembly  where  the  grace  of  time  is  crowned  with  a  double 
increase.  For  even  in  the  church  here  on  earth,  there 
are  promotions  of  bishops,  of  presbyters,  and  of  deacons  ;^ 
which  are,  I  suppose,  imitations  of  angelic  glory,  and  of 
that  state  which  awaits  those  who  walk  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  apostles,  and  in  the  perfect  righteousness  of  the 
gospel.  These,  the  apostle  tells  us,  being  received  up 
into  the  clouds,  shall  first  be  engaged  in  suitable  services, 
and  then  advanced  to  the  presbytery,  according  to  the  pro- 
motion of  glory,  (for  glory  differs  from  glory,)  until  they 
grow  to  a  perfect  man." 

We  have  given  the  whole  of  this  passage  that  the  reader 
may  judge  for  himself.  First,  then,  it  is  plain  that  Clemens 
set  a  comparatively  light  estimate  upon  ordination  by  im- 
position of  hands,  if  separate  from  true  piety.  Secondly, 
he  says  he  supposes  that  the  "  promotions  of  bishops,  of 
presbyters,  and  of  deacons,  are  imitations  of  angelic  glory;" 
by  which  he  appears  only  to  mean  heavenly  glory  in  general. 
He  never  mentions  different  orders  of  angels  in  the  pas- 
sage :  the  writer  of  the  Revelation  to  whom  he  refers 
never  uses  the  word  archangel,  or  orders  of  angels. 
Thirdly,  as  to  this  angelic  or  heavenly  glory,  he  explains 
himself  by  speaking  of  the  four  and  twenty  elders  (pres- 
byters) as  the  summit  of  it — the  highest  perfection  of  that 
g'lory,  that  indeed  in  which  the  apostles  are  found.  No 
higher  place  is  assigned  in  the  Scriptures  to  the  apostles 
themselves,  than  to  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel.    Matt,  xix,  28.     And  he  makes 


116       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

being  "  like  angels,"  being  "  like  the  apostles."  He 
speaks  of  his  "  perfect  man,"  being  "  enrolled  among  the 
apostles,"  and  explicates  his  meaning  by  going  on  to  show, 
that  though  he  should  not  on  earth  be  "  honoured  with 
sitting  in  a  first  throne,  yet  he  shall  sit  in  the  presbytery 
of  those  four  and  twenty  thrones^  judging  the  people  :"  the 
apostles,  therefore,  according  to  Clemens,  sit  on  such 
thrones.  They  belong  to  that  presbytery.  That  pres- 
bytery is  the  mansion  of  holiness  for  the  perfect  man. 
Here  is  no  place  for  the  bishop  over  this  presbytery, 
without  placing  him  over  the  apostles  themselves.  With 
Clemens,  then,  nothing  belonging  to  the  church,  either  in 
heaven  or  on  earth,  is  higher  than  a  true  presbyter.  We 
hope  multitudes  of  good  bishops  will  be  there :  but,  if 
Clemens  be  right,  it  will  be  their  highest  glory  to  be  -per- 
fect PRESBYTERS. 

But  Clemens  has  a  passage  in  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  book  of  the  same  work,  in  which  he  clearly  main- 
tains the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  Speaking  of 
the  public  worship  of  God,  in  opposition  or  contrast  to 
mental  worship,  he  says,  "  One  part  of  it  is  performed  by 
superior  ministers,  another  part  by  inferior  ministers.  The 
superior  part  is  performed  hy  presbyters ;  the  inferior,  or 
servile  part,  by  the  deacons^  Here  bishops  are  included 
in  the  presbyters,  that  is,  they  are  one  and  the  same  order 
and  office.  This  is  another  important  testimony  against 
high  Church  episcopacy. 

Origen  flourished  about  A.  D.  230.  All  he  says  is  con- 
formable to  the  statement  of  Jerome,  viz.,  that  presbyters 
and  bishops  are  substantially  the  same  order  ;  the  circum- 
stantial difference  is,  that  one  presbyter  was  set  over  the 
rest,  and  distinguished  by  the  denomination  of  bishop.  If 
we  show  this  substantial  identity,  it  will  follow,  of  course, 
that  the  difference  is  only  circumstantial.  Let  us  hear 
Origen :  "  Dost  thou  think  that  they  who  are  honoured 
with  the  priesthood,  and  glory  in  their  priestly  order,  walk 
according  to  that  order  ?  In  like  manner,  dost  thou  suppose 
the  deacons  also  walk  according  to  their  order  ?  Whence 
then  is  it  that  we  often  hear  reviling  men  exclaim,  '  What  a 
bishop  !'  '  What  a  presbyter !'  or,  '  What  a  deacon  is  this 
fellow !'  Do  not  these  things  arise  from  hence,  that  the 
priest  or  the  deacon,  had,  in  some  thing,  gone  contrary  to 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        117 

his  order,  and  had  done  something  against  the  priestly,  or 
the  Levitical  order  ?"*  Here  is  the  priesthood  and  priestly 
order,  and  the  Levitical  order:  the  bishop  and  presbyter  are 
EQUALLY  put  into  xhefrst,  that  is,  the  priesthood,  or  priestly 
arder ;  and  deacons  are  noticed  in  the  place  or  order  of 
the  Levites.  The  bishops  and  presbyters  are  spoken  of 
as  one  and  the  same  order.  In  another  part,  speaking  of 
the  queen  of  Sheba  admiring  the  order  of  Solomon's  ser- 
vants, Origen's  lively  imagination  supposes  that  Solomon's 
household  t}*pified  the  church  of  God  ;  and  Solomon's  ser- 
vants, the  ministers  of  the  church  : — "  Imagine  the  ecclesi- 
astical ORDER,  siTTixG  in  the  seats  or  chairs  of  bishops  and 
presbyters.  She  saw  also  the  array  of  servants  standing  to 
■wait  in  their  service.  This  (as  it  seems  to  me)  speaks  of 
the  order  of  desicons  standing  to  attend  on  divine  service. "f 
Here  one  and  the  same  ecclesiastical  order  includes  both 
bishops  and  presbyters.  Again:  "  What  will  it  profit  me 
to  sit  in  a  higher  chair,  if  my  works  are  not  answerable 
to  my  dignity  ?"J  This  is  his  mode  of  representing  the 
circumsta7itiaJ  difference  of  a  bishop,  occupying  the  dignity 
of  a  "  higher  chair,'^  in  sitting,  with  his  co-presbyters,  to 
preside  over  the  church.  For  he  says  the  presbyters  pre- 
side over  the  church  too.  Thus,  addressing  his  hearers  in 
Horn.  7,  on  Jeremiah,  he  says,  "  We,  of  the  clerical  or- 
DER,  who  PRESIDE  over  youT  Now  ever^-one  knows  that 
Origen  was  never  any  thing  more  than  a  presbyter. 
Speaking  in  another  place  of  the  ambition  of  some  persons 
to  be  great  in  the  church,  he  says,  "  They  first  desire  to 
be  deacons,  but  not  such  as  the  Scripture  describes,  but 
such  as  devour  widows'  houses,  and  for  pretence  make 
long  prayers,  and  therefore  shall  receive  a  heavier  judg- 
ment-. Such  deacons  consequently  will  go  about  to  seize 
the  HIGH  chairs  of  presbyters — primas  cathcEdras.  Some 
also,  not  content  with  that,  attempt  more,  in  order  that  they 
may  be  called  bishops,  that  is,  rabbi ;  but  they  ought  to 
understand  that  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  and  have  the 
rest  of  the  qualities  described  there,  (Titus  i,  6,  &c.,)  so  that 
though  men  should  not  give  such  a  one  the  name  of  bishop, 
yet  he  mil  be  a  bishop  before  God."^  This  is  the  general 
st}'le  of  Origen  on  this  subject,  and  the  substance  of  what 

*  Horn.  2,  in  Num.  t  Horn.  2,  in  Cant. 

X  Horn.  6,  iu  Ezek.  ^  Tract.  24,  b  Matt.  23. 


lis       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

occurs  in  his  Works,  on  the  matter.  It  is  clear  enough 
that  Jerome  has  given  us  the  sense  of  Origen,  as  well  as 
of  the  rest  of  the  ancients.  He  was  perfectly  acquainted 
with  Origen's  opinion,  and  translated  many  of  his  works. 
Bishops  and  presbyters,  luith  Origen,  were  the  same  order  ; 
they  RULED  the  church  in  common^  the  presbyters  pre- 
siding with  the  bishop ;  he  having  a  higher  chair,  and 
being  distinguished  by  the  name  of  bishop. 

Cyprian  flourished  about  A.  D.  250.  He  was  a  great 
and  good  man,  and  nobly  sealed  the  truth  with  his  blood 
as  a  martyr  of  Christ.  However,  he  certainly  had  some- 
what inflated  views  of  the  dignity  of  a  bishop,  and  is  con- 
sidered to  be  as  high  as  any  of  the  primitive  fathers  in  his 
notions  on  the  subject.  Yet  they  amount  to  no  more  than 
Jerome's  statement.  Let  the  man  that  says  they  do,  pro- 
duce the  proof.  As  high  language  may  be  produced  from 
Jerome  as  any  used  by  Cyprian  ;  yet  Jerome  expressly 
tells  us  his  sober  view  was,  that,  by  divine  right,  bishops 
and  presbyters  were  the  same.  The  language,  therefore, 
that  Cyprian  uses,  is  to  be  interpreted  as  consistent  with 
this  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  It  is  of  much  im- 
portance to  keep  this  in  mind.  Another  thing  may  assist 
the  reader's  judgment  here.  He  has  seen  the  levelling 
views  of  Tertullian.  Now  it  is  well  known  that  Cyprian 
was  so  PASSIONATE  au  admirer  of  Tertullian  as  never  to  let  a 
DAY  pass  without  reading  some  part  of  his  writings  ;  and  his 
language,  in  calling  for  his  Works  to  be  brought  him  regu- 
larly for  this  purpose,  was,  "  Da  magistrum — Give  me  the 
master.''^  The  admiring  scholar  must  resemble  his  master. 
We  shall  see  even  under  Cyprian,  that  the  church  was 
ruled  in  common  by  the  bishops  and  presbyters.  Cyprian 
did  not  suppose  he  ought  to  do  any  thing  of  moment  in 
his  church  without  the  council  of  his  clergy.  Writing  to 
his  presbyters  and  deacons,  he  says,  "  From  the  beginning 
of  my  episcopacy  I  determined  to  do  nothing  of  my  own 
accord,  but  only  by  your  council,  and  with  the  consent  of 
the  people.  When,  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  return  unto 
you,  then  we  will,  as  our  mutual  honour  requires,  confer  in 
common  upon  those  things  which  have  been  done,  or  which 
still  remain  to  be  done."*  But  he  goes  further  than  this. 
He  shows  his  opinion  that  the  presbyters  had  powers,  by 
*  Ep.  6,  ed.  Pamel,  1589. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       119 

divine  right,  to  perform  any  of  a  bishop's  duties  in  his 
absence.  In  his  seclusion  from  the  rage  of  his  persecu- 
tors, he  writes  to  his  presbyters  and  deacons,  saying,  "  I 
beseech  you,  according  to  your  faith  and  religion,  that  you 
perform  your  own  duties,  and  also  those  belonging  to  me, 
so  that  nothing  may  be  wanting  either  as  to  discipline  or 
diligence."  Ep.  5.  Again,  having  mentioned  matters  of 
church  government :  "I  rely  upon  your  love  and  your  reli- 
gion, which  I  well  know,  and  by  these  letters  I  exhort  and 
COMMIT  THE  CHARGE  to  you,  that  you,  v/hose  presence 
does  not  expose  you  to  such  peril,  would  discharge  my 
duty,  act  in  my  place ^  {vice  mea,)  and  perform  all  those 
things  which  the  administration  of  the  church  requires." 
Ep.  6.  These  passages  are  decisive  in  proof,  that  sub- 
stantially, the  bishop  and  presbyter  were  in  Cyprian's 
opinion  the  same.  The  presiding  power  of  the  clergy  is 
very  strongly  put  by  him,  when,  in  writing  to  Cornelius, 
bishop  of  Rome,  he  speaks  of  them  as  "  compresbyters  of 
Cornelius,"  Ep.  42  ;  and  "  the  most  illustrious  clergy 
PRESIDING  WITH  THE  BISHOP  ovcr  the  churchP  Ep.  55. 
Again,  as  "the  sacred  and  venerable  consistory  of  his 
clergy y  Ep.  55,  p.  107.  He  applies  the  term  pnBpositus^ 
president,  as  well  as  pastor,  to  the  presbyters  and  to  the 
bishops  in  common.  Ep.  10, 11, 23,  and  62.  Indeed,  in  Ep. 
20,  he  applies  it  to  presbyters  alone,  as  distinct  from  the 
bishop.  Cyprian  uses  the  term  collega  for  a  bishop,  very 
frequently.  The  fourth  council  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  398, 
thus  speak  on  the  subject :  "  As  in  the  church,  and  in  the 
concession  of  the  presbyters,  the  bishop  sits  in  a  higher  seat 
than  the  presbytery,  so  in  other  places  let  him  know  that 
he  is  truly  a  colleague,  collega,  of  the  presbyters  :  can.  35." 
This  was  in  the  very  city  in  which  Cyprian  had  been 
bishop.  There  were  two  hundred  and  fourteen  bishops  in 
the  council,  among  whom  was  the  famous  St.  Augustine,  at 
that  time  bishop  of  Hippo.  This  canon  became  imbodied 
in  the  canon  law,  and  makes  part  of  the  law  of  the  Ro- 
mish Church  to  this  day.  In  his  angry  Epistle  to  Pupian, 
a  bishop  and  confessor,  when  put  upon  the  point  of  clear- 
ing himself  from  some  charges  of  pride,  haughtiness,  &c., 
which  Pupian  had  mentioned  to  him  in  a  letter,  he  stands 
in  the  defence  of  the  divine  authority  of  his  office  in  the 
church :  he  says  the  Lord  strengthened  this  divine  autho- 


120       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

rity  hy  a  revelation  in  a  dream ;  and  he  places  it  upon  this, 
that  he  was  a  priest,  sacerdos.  None  of  our  high  Churchmen 
deny  that  a  presbyter  is  a  priest,  or  sacerdos.  The  council 
of  Carthage,  in  the  canon  just  now  mentioned,  use- the  word 
sacer dotes  for  presbyters  only,  "  Episcopus — collegam  se  sa- 
cerdotum  esse  cognoscat — let  the  bishop  know  that  he  is  the 
colleague  of  the  priests  or  presbyters.''^  Such  is  the  solemn 
determination  of  two  hundred  and  fourteen  bishops,  the  great 
Augustine  among  them.  Cabassute,  the  learned  Romish 
historian  of  the  councils,  says  of  this  council,  "  Never 
were  more  excellent  and  comprehensive  regulations  made 
for  church  discipline  than  in  this  council ;  so  that  its  de- 
crees may  be  said  to  be  a  storehouse  of  instruction  as  to  the 
regulation  of  the  whole  order  of  the  clergy."  Here,  again, 
then,  the  bishop  and  presbyter  are  in  substance  the  same. 
Indeed,  according  to  Dr.  Barrow's  view  of  the  following 
passage,  Cj'prian  distinctly  declares  that,  at  the  first,  ''^  for 
a  time,^^  there  were  no  bishops  as  now  ;  but  that  they  were 
afterward,  and  by  human  authority,  constituted  to  take 
away  schisms,  exactly  according  to  Jerome's  statements. 
Cyprian  says,  "  Heresies  are  sprung  up,  and  schisms 
grown  from  no  other  root  but  this,  because  God's  priest 
was  not  obeyed ;  nor  was  there  one  priest  or  bishop /b?'  a 
time  in  the  church,  nor  a  judge  thought  on  for  a  time  to 
supply  the  room  of  Christ."  Ep.  bb.  "  Where,"  says  Dr. 
Barrow,  "that  by  the  church  is  meant  any  particular  church, 
and  by  priest  a  bishop  of  such  church,  any  one  not  be- 
witched with  prejudice  by  the  tenor  of  St.  Cyprian's  dis- 
course, will  easily  discover."* 

The  Epistle  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church  will  develop 
the  same  thing.  He  explains  and  confirms  his  views  by 
the  case  of  the  apostles.  Peter,  he  thinks,  had  the  ^r.y^ 
grant  of  the  keys,  though  all  had  equal  power.  "  After 
the  resurrection,  each  and  all  of  the  other  apostles  had 
EQUAL  power  given  to  that  of  Peter."  This,  he  supposes, 
gives  a  principle  of  unity,  a  kind  o^  headship,  with  equality 
of  power  among  all.  Having  laid  down  his  scheme  in 
the  apostles,  he  applies  it  to  all  ministers.  "  All  are 
pastors,  but  the  flock  is  only  one,  which  was  fed  by  all 
the  apostles  with  unanimous  consent^  He  proceeds  to 
point  out  the  duty  of  keeping  this  unity  in  general,  and 
*  Barrow's  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  141,  ed.  dto.,  1680. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        121 

shows  the  importance  of  the  bishops  of  different  parts  of 
the  church  acting  on  the  same  plan,  in  order  to  prevent 
the  scheme  of  Xovatus  and  others,  who  tried  to  gain  over, 
and  did  gain  over,  some  of  the  bishops  to  their  side.  This 
was  good  advice.  Then  "  all  ministers  are  pastors,"  as 
really  as  all  the  apostles  were  apostles  :  and  one  person 
in  each  city  or  district  having  a  kind  of  headship  over 
others,  for  the  sake  of  unity,  perfectly  consists  with  equal 
powers  among  all ;  as  much  so  as  that  the  apostles  had 
all  equal  poicer,  notwithstanding  the  headship  of  Peter. 
"VMiether  Cyprian  was  right  or  Avrong  in  his  opinion  about 
Peter's  headship,  makes  no  difference  to  our  present  argu- 
ment. We  give  his  scheme  merely  to  show  C}'prian's 
views  of  the  substantial  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters, 
with  the  shadow  of  a  distinction  between  them  in  the  head- 
ship of  the  bishop.  The  remark  again  easily  suggests 
itself,  that  the  same  mode  of  arguing  which  our  high 
Churchmen  employ  for  their  view  of  bishops,  jure  divino, 
is  employed  with  equal  plausibility  by  the  Papists  for  the 
UNIVERSAL  headship  of  the  pope.  C}-prian  maintained 
the  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF  EQUALITY  amoug  all  pastors,  and 
that  the  difference  was  circumstantial  and  nonessential. 
The  contrary  tends  to  Poper}^  So  the  celebrated  high 
Church  Dodwell  fairly  pushes  himself,  on  this  very  point 
in  C}*prian,  to  this  clear  establishment  of  the  popedom — 
"  Christ,  as  the  head  of  the  church,  is  not  sufficient  to 
its  unity,  but  there  must  be  besides  a  visible  head  in  the 
visible  church."*  Glorious  news  for  Poper)- 1  And  all  are 
doomed  as  schismatics  to  eternal  damnation  by  Dodwell 
and  the  Oxford  Tract-men  who  do  not  submit  to  this 
Popish  dogma  1 1  Cyprian,  however,  directs  the  people  to 
forsake  wicked  ministers.  He  says,  "  A  people  obedient 
to  the  Lord's  commands,  and  fearing  God,  ought  to  sepa- 
rate themselves  from  a  wicked  bishop,  and  not  partake 
of  the  sacraments  of  a  sacrilegious  priest,  seeing  they 
chiefly  have  the  power  of  electing  worthy  ministers,  and 
of  rejecting  the  unworthy."   Ep.  68. 

Bishop  Beveridge  and  the  learned  Dodwell  have  selected 
the  following  as  the  strongest  passage  in  Cj-prian  for  high 
Church  episcopacy.  If  this  can  be  shown  to  fail  that 
scheme,  then  nothing  in   Cj^rian   will  support  it.     As 

*  Dodwelli  Diss.  Cyprian,  No.  7,  sec.  22. 
6 


122       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Cyprian  is,  perhaps,  the  highest  in  his  notions  on  this 
subject  of  all  the  genuine  fathers,  it  will  conduce  to  the 
purpose  of  our  argument  to  give  this  passage  a  thorough 
examination.  The  passage  is  in  his  "  Epistle  to  the 
LAPSED,  who  themselves  had  written  to  Cyprian  about  the 
peace  or  reconciliation  to  the  church,  which  Paul,  the 
martyr,  had  given  to  them."  The  passage  is  as  follows  : — 
"  Our  Lord,  (whose  precepts  we  are  obliged  to  reverence 
and  observe,)  when  arranging  matters  that  regard  the 
honour  of  the  bishop  and  the  order  of  his  church,  thus 
speaks  in  the  gospel,  and  says  to  Peter,  '  I  say  unto  thee, 
that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it : 
and  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  whatsoerer  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven.'  Hence  the  ordination  of  bishops, 
and  the  arrangement  of  the  church,  have,  through  different 
times  and  successions,  come  down  to  the  present,  so  that 
the  church  is  placed  upon  the  bishops :  and  all  acts  of 
the  church  are  governed  by  these  same  presidents  of  the 
church.  Seeing  then  this  is  established  hy  divine  law,  I 
marvel  that  certain  persons" — these  lapsers — "  should  have 
the  temerity  to  write  to  me  in  such  a  manner," — telling 
him,  (Ep.  29,)  that  they  did  not  need  his  (Cyprian's)  let- 
ters of  peace,  since  Paul,  the  martyr,  had  given  them 
such  letters  ; — "  seeing,"  says  Cyprian,  "  the  church  is 
constituted  of  the  bishop,  the  clergy,  and  of  all  the  faithful 
of  the  people.  Far  be  it  indeed  from  the  truth  of  the  case, 
and  from  the  long-suffering  of  God,  that  the  church  should 
consist  in  the  number  of  the  lapsed." 

Here  then  let  us,  first,  explain  the  case  of  the  lapsed; 
secondly,  the  laws  of  church  government  in  Cyprian's 
time,  on  this  and  similar  matters. 

First,  the  lapsed.  These  were  persons  who  had  fallen 
from  their  faith  in  the  persecution.  They  were  eager  to 
be  admitted  to  the  peace  of  the  church,  before  they  had 
given  those  proofs  of  their  recovery  from  their  fall  which 
were  then  generally  judged  necessary  in  such  cases. 
Some  of  the  martyrs,  (persons  who  had  survived  their 
sufferings  in  the  persecution,)  from  the  honours  they  had 
gained  by  their  constancy,  had  obtained  great  influence  in 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        123 

the  church,  and  had,  though  only  laymen,  given  letters  of 
peace  to  the  lapsed,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  bishop 
and  of  the  clergy  in  general.  Some  few  of  the  presbyters 
had  acted  in  the  same  disorderly  manner,  "  contemning 
the  bishop  and  arrogating  the  whole  authority  in  this 
matter  to  themselves."   Ep.  10. 

Secondly,  let  us  explain  the  laws  of  church  govern- 
ment, in  Cyprian's  time,  on  this  and  similar  matters. 
Cyprian  then  himself,  ia  numberless  places,  states  that 
these  laws  required  the  mutual  concurrence  of  the  bishop, 
the  presbyters,  the  deacons,  and  of  all  the  faithful  of  the 
church :  so  that  he  could  not,  "  durst  not,'''  he  says,  do  any 
thing  of  importance  without  them :  of  course,  no  indivi- 
duals, as  a  party,  could  do  any  thing  without  him  and  the 
other  clergy  with  him.  This  law  he  expressly  and  re- 
peatedly applies  to  such  cases  as  ordaining  readers,  dea- 
cons, &c.,  and  he  expressly  applies  it  to  this  case  of 
reconciling  the  lapsed.  In  this  act  the  bishop  and  the 
clergy  both  equally  laid  their  hands  upon  the  lapsed  ia 
restoring  them  to  the  peace  of  the  church — "  manu  eis  ah 
episcopo  ET  CLERO  imposita^  Ep.  10. 

The  question  in  dispute,  then,  was  not  between  the 
bishop  and  the  presbyters  ;  nothing  of  the  kind :  but  be- 
tween the  bishop,  with  the  clerg}^  in  general  on  one  side, 
and  a  faction  in  the  church  on  the  other.  Cyprian  claims 
no  sole  powers  for  the  bishop.  He  repeatedly  acknow- 
ledges that  the  power  and  authority  of  the  bishop  was  so 
LIMITED,  that  he  could  do  nothing  of  importance  of  him- 
self. His  office  was  to  convene  the  church,  and  preside 
over,  or  superintend,  the  acts  of  the  church :  "all  acts  of 
the  church  are  governed  by  these  presidents."  He  was, 
then,  nothing  more,  by  Cyprian's  own  account,  than  a 
limited  superintendent,  unable  to  do  any  thing  of  general 
importance  aloxe  ;  but  whose  ojffice  it  was  to  superintend  all 
the  affairs  and  proceedings  of  the  church,  whether  those  pro- 
ceedings were  by  the  ministers  or  the  people^  separately  or 
conjointly.  Presbyters  could,  in  an  emergency,  exercise 
all  the  powers  of  this  office ;  for  so  Cyprian  himself  re- 
quests and  commands  them  to  perform  all  things  in  his 
ajfice  that  belonged  to  the  government  of  the  church.  This 
superintendency  Cyprian  (though  his  meaning  is  not  clear) 
seems  to  think  is  established  by  divine  law :  his  proofs  are, 


124       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  authority  given  to  Peter,  the  ordinations  of  bishops, 
the  arrangements  of  the  church,  and  the  successions  of 
bishops  to  each  other.  Sometimes,  however,  he  seems  to 
have  doubted  this  point,  viz.,  that  this  superintend ency 
was  established  by  divine  law  :  for  in  the  passage  above 
given  from  him  by  Dr.  Barrow,  he  says  there  was  no  such 
president  or  judge  for  a  time  in  the  church,  and  that  this 
was  the  cause  of  the  heresies  that  arose  for  want  of  it. 
But  Cyprian  is  very  expert  at  using  divine  authority.  He 
pleads  his  "  night  visions — noctumas  visiones^^ — for  this. 
Ep.  10.  He  styles  the  election  of  Cornelius  by  the  clergy 
and  people,  "  the  judgment  of  God  and  of  Christ."  Ep.  46 
and  52.  This  is  frequently  his  way  of  answering  his  ad- 
versaries on  disputed  points.  So  in  some  disputed  ordina- 
tions, Ep.  55  :  and  similar  things  in  many  other  places,  he 
thus  makes  them  to  be  by  divine  authority.  For  Cyprian 
to  plead  THIS  kind  of  divine  authority  for  this  superintend- 
ency,  amounts  to  little ;  and  such  certainly  appears  to  be 
his  style  of  reasoning  in  the  passage  in  dispute.  This 
limited  superintendency,  then,  is  Cyprian's  episcopacy; 
and  such  is  the  divine  right  which  he  pleads  for  this 
limited  superintendency.  This  is  the  very  utmost  that  the 
strongest  passage  in  Cyprian,  himself  the  strongest  advo- 
cate in  antiquity,  can  prove.  Does  this,  then,  establish 
high  Church  episcopacy  ?  Cyprian,  who  was  the  arch- 
bishop of  that  part  of  Africa — yea,  Cyprian  durst  not,  could 
not,  do  any  thing  of  importance  without  consulting  his 
presbyters  and  deacons ;  and  frequently  the  people  also : 
his  presbyters  in  his  absence,  when  need  required,  could 
perform  all  that  belonged  to  his  office  without  him.  Will 
this  superintendency  satisfy  a  high  Church  bishop?  no, 
verily,  nor  a  low  Church  bishop  either.  When  it  was 
proposed  at  the  conference,  at  Worcester  House,  about  the 
king's  (Charles  H.)  declaration,  that  "the  bishops  should 
exercise  their  church  power  with  the  counsel  and  consent 
of  presbyter s,^^  Bishop  Cosins  (one  of  the  most  learned 
bishops  in  the  canons,  councils,  and  fathers)  presently 
replied,  "  If  your  majesty  grants  this,  you  will  unbishop 
your  bishops."    See  p.  48  of  this  Essay. 

FiRMiLiAN,  bishop  of  Cesarea  in  Cappadocia,  was  very 
celebrated  in  his  day.  He  was  contemporary  with  Cyprian. 
A  very  long  letter  of  his  is  found  in  Cyprian's  Works. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        125 

He  says,  "  All  power  and  grace  is  in  the  church,  in  which 
PRESBYTERS  PRESIDE,  and  havc  the  power  of  baptizing, 
confirming,  and  ordainixg.  Omnis  potestas  et  gratia  in 
ecclesia  constituta  sit,  ubi  prjssident  majores  natu,  qui 
€t  baptizandi,  et  manum  imponendi  et  ordinandi,  possident 
potestatem."  This  is  every  way  a  decisive  testimony. 
The  manner  in  which  he  puts  it,  shows  that  he  had  not  a 
suspicion  that  the  assertion  had  any  thing  in  it  contrary  to 
Cyprian's  views.  Had  Cyprian  believed  in  the  divine 
right  of  the  order  of  bishops,  as  possessing  the  sole  power 
and  authority  of  ordination  and  confirmation,  he 
would  necessarily  have  opposed  the  doctrine  of  Firmilian 
as  a  dangerous  heresy.  He  did  not.  The  consequence 
is  plain :  he  did  not  hold  such  a  view  of  the  divine  right 
of  bishops. 

The  decisive  language  of  Firmilian  gives  a  proper  key 
to  Cyprian.  The  letter  of  Firmilian  has  the  most  perfect 
authenticity.  Firmilian  is  equal,  or  even  superior  authority 
to  Cyprian  himself.  Eusebius  (Eccles.  Hist.,  1.  6,  c.  26) 
says,  "  he  was  very  famous.''''  "  He  made,"  says  Howel, 
"  A  MUCH  more  considerable  figure  in  the  church  at  that 
time  than  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Firmilian  was  president 
of  this  council,''''  that  is.,  the  council  of  Antioch.*  Firmilian's 
testimony  is  as  high  and  as  decided  as  language  can  make 
it.  And  it  does  not  speak  of  isolated  facts,  but  of  the 
practice  of  the  church.  It  was  the  practice  then  for 
presbyters  to  preside  over  the  church,  to  confirm,  and  to 
ordain.  Suppose  this  chiefly  to  have  been  confined  to 
the  country  of  Firmilian,  that  is,  to  Asia  Minor ;  this  is 
abundantly  enough.  Firmilian  was  known  over  the  whole 
Christian  world.  The  practice  was  never  condemned; 
the  ordinations  were  never  objected  to.  This  case  is 
worth  a  thousand  single  instances  of  ordination  ;  for  such 
a  matter  could  not  be  established  as  practice,  and  then  con- 
tinued as  practice,  in  the  most  celebrated  part  of  the 
Christian  world  at  that  time,  without  resulting  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  thousands  of  ministers. 

We  have  now  gone  through  all  the  principal  writers  that 

speak  on  the  subjects  in  question,  during  the  first  three 

CENTURIES  ;  and  we  see  that  their  authority  utterly  fails 

to  maintain  the  views  of  our  high  Church  divines  on  the 

*  Howel's  Pontificate,  p.  24. 


126  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

order  of  bishops  and  apostolical  succession  ;  and  estab- 
lishes the  contrary. 

A  few  observations  on  some  of  the  later  fathers  shall 
close  this  section. 

Athanasius  flourished  A.  D.  350.  Some  writers  on 
episcopacy  quote  an  Epistle  of  his  to  a  monk  named  Dra- 
contius,  in  favour  of  bishops  by  divine  right,  as  an  order 
with  powers  incompatible  with  the  ofiice  of  presbyters. 
Here  is  the  usual  fallacy  of  such  writers,  in  presuming  that 
any  mention  of  bishops  always  means  such  an  order  of 
bishops  as  this.  Indeed  they  must  write  upon  this  fallacy, 
or  they  must  drop  their  pens.  But  this  is  begging  the 
question,  and  proves  nothing.  Now  in  this  Epistle  of 
Athanasius  there  is  not  a  syllable  about  the  difference 
between  bishops  and  presbyters.  The  substance  of  the 
whole  is  this — Whether  a  monk,  who  was  a  layman, 
should  enter  the  Christian  ministry  and  brave  the  dangers 
that  then  threatened  all  in  that  ofSce ;  or  whether  he 
should,  coward  like,  shun  those  dangers  by  remaining  in 
the  desert  and  in  the  cell.  Athanasius  presses  the  argu- 
ment that  to  despise  this  ministry,  there  spoken  of  as  to  a 
bishop,  was  to  despise  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  Yery 
true.  We  all  believe  this.  But  what  does  it  prove  as  to 
the  question  before  us  ?  just  nothing.  Such  are  the  best 
of  their  attempts  at  proving  their  scheme  from  the  fathers 
of  any  age,  either  early  or  late.  We  shall  not  swell  this 
volume  by  a  lengthened  exposure  of  them.  The  case  of 
Ischyras's  ordination,  mentioned  by  Athanasius,  is  not  de- 
cisive for  either  side  of  the  argument ;  though  a  thorough 
examination  of  it  would  perhaps  be  decidedly  against  the 
high  Church  scheme.* 

Ambrose  flourished  about  A.  D.  370.  A  commentary 
on  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  published  in  his  Works,  is  some- 
times supposed  to  have  been  the  work  of  Hilary,  a  dea- 
con of  Rome.  Divines  generally  seem  to  admit  its  worth 
and  weight  to  be  equal,  whether  it  be  ascribed  to  Ambrose 
or  Hilary.  The  deacons  of  that  day  had  risen  greatly  in 
the  principal  churches,  and  had  become  eminent.  The 
cause  was  this  :  the  deacons  had  the  principal  manage- 
ment of  the  goods  of  the  church.  The  churches  had 
become  very  rich,  even  before  Constantine's  time.  The 
*  See  Stillingfleet's  Irenieum,  pp.  381,  382. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        127 

number  of  deacons  was  limited  to  seven,  in  the  church  of 
Rome  ;  and  this  while  the  presbyters  amounted  to  more 
than  seven  times  seven.  The  deacons,  therefore,  had 
much  power  and  influence.  Some  of  them  were  among 
the  most  able  and  learned  men  of  the  age.  Athanasius 
was  only  a  deacon,  while  he  was  one  of  the  most  celebrated 
champions  for  the  faith  in  the  great  council  of  Nice.  Am- 
brose then,  or  Hilary,  says,  "  After  churches  were  con- 
stituted in  every  place,  and  officers  appointed,  things 
BEGAN  to  be  arranged  differextly  from  what  they  were 
in  the  beginning ;  for,  at  the  first,  all  taught,  and  all  bap- 
tized. But  if  all  had  continued  to  be  allowed  to  perform 
the  same  things,  it  would  have  been  absurd,  and  the  min- 
istry would  have  become  vile  and  contemptible.  The 
apostles'  writings  are  not  altogether  agreeable  to  the  order 
of  things  as  now  practised  in  the  church.  For  Timothy, 
who  was  ordained  a  presbyter  by  Paul,  he  calls  a  bishop ; 
because  the  first  or  chief  presbyters,  were  called  bishops. 
His  words  are,  "  Primi  presbyteri  episcopi  appellqtantur."* 
First  or  chief  presbyters  were  called  bishops;  and, 
as  one  departed,  the  next  succeeded  to  the  office.  But 
because  the  next  in  succession  were  sometimes  found 
unworthy  to  hold  the  primacy,  the  custom  was  changed 
by  the  provision  of  a  council ;  so  that  not  the  next  in  order, 
but  the  next  in  merit,  should  be  made  bishop,  and  consti- 
tuted such  BY  the  judgment  of  a  number  of  the  presby- 
ters, lest  an  unworthy  person  should  usurp,  and  become 
a  general  scandal. "f  "  The  presbyter  and  bishop  had  one 
and  the  same  ordination.  The  bishop  is  the  chief  among 
the  presbyters — Episcopus  est  quiinter presbyteros primus. ^''\ 
Here  it  is  plainly  stated  that  the  usages  of  the  church,  in 
his  day,  were  different  from  what  they  were  in  the  apos- 
tles' time  ;  and  therefore  they  could  only  be  of  human 
authority,  and  not  of  divine  right.  The  presbyters  and 
bishops,  he  says,  had  "  one  and  the  same  ordination." 

*  Mr.  Sinclair  (p.  90)  chooses  to  display  some  wit,  and  to  show  his 
knowledge,  by  declaring  that  "  a  frime  presbyter,  as  presiding  in  the 
college  of  presbyters,"  is  an  '' iiiveyition  of  the  modern  followers  of  Ae- 
rius"— that  "  this  poetic  personage,  this  creature  of  the  dissenting  ima- 
gination, was  created  by  David  Blondel."  Mr.  Sinclair,  of  course,  talks 
by  hearsay  about  Ambrose,  otherwise  his  wit  would  have  been  spoiled, 
and  his  learning  improved. 

t  Com.  in  Ephes.  cap.  4.  %  Com.  in  1  Tim.  iii. 


128        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

The  consecration  of  bishops,  as  now  used,  has  no  Scrip- 
tural authority :  it  is  merely  a  ceremony.  Then  he  pro- 
ceeds to  say,  that  a  presidency  became  established.  This, 
at  the  first,  took  place  by  mere  seniority,  and  one  was 
CONSTITUTED  BISHOP  BY  the  judgment  of  the  other  pres- 
byters :  the  presbyters  made  the  bishop  ;  and  this  pre- 
cedence was  given  to  one  presbyter  as  bishop,  for  the 
honour  of  the  church  and  the  ministry,  and  not  by  any 
divine  right.  Indeed,  he  says,  it  was  different  from  apos' 
folic  usage. 

We  may  here  introduce  the  matter  of  Aerius.  I  con- 
sider it  of  little  importance  ;  and  the  opinion  of  Epiphani- 
us  about  it  is  much  of  the  same  value.  Stillingfleet  says, 
''  I  believe,  upon  the  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's  judgment 
will  prove  true,  that  Hieron,  Austin,  Ambrose,  Sedulius, 
Primasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Theophilact,  were  all 
of  Aerius's  judgment  as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and 
order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive  church  ; 
but  here  lay  the  difference  :  Aerius  from  thence  proceeded 
te  separation  from  the  bishops  and  their  churches,  because 
they  were  bishops."*  But  then,  say  the  advocates  of 
episcopacy,  Epiphanius  wrote  against  his  opinion,  and 
numbered  Aerius  among  heretics  because  of  it.  As  to 
Aerius's  views,  we  have  heard  Stillingfleet's  opinion. 
They  who  say  he  was  accounted  a  heretic  solely  for  main- 
taining that  bishops  and  presbyters  were,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  the  same,  do  not  know  what  they  say.  Who 
maintained  this  more  boldly  than  Jerome  ?  But  neither 
Epiphanius,  who  was  a  friend  of  Jerome's,  nor  any  other 
person,  ever  counted  Jerome  a  heretic  on  this  account. 
Augustine  says,  "  Aerius  maintained  that  a  bishop  could  not 
ordain.  He  opposed  the  existence  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween a  bishop  and  presbyter;  he  rejected  it;  he  also 
fell  into  the  heresy  of  the  Arians,  &c.t  And  as  to  Epi- 
phanius, whatever  he  was  besides,  he  was  a  hot-headed^ 
meddling  bigot.  He  quarrelled  with  John,  bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and  ordained  in  John's  diocess  without  his  leave. 
He  collected  a  council  in  Cyprus  to  condemn  Origen's 
Works,  and  wrote  to  Chrysostom  to  do  the  same  thing. 
Chrysostom  refused.  Epiphanius  had  the  temerity  to 
enter  Constantinople,  Chrysostom's  see,  in  order  to  cause 
*  Iren.,  p.  276.         t  Vid.  Augustinide  Heresibus,  No.  53. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        129 

the  decree  of  Cyprus  against  Origen  to  be  put  in  execution 
there.  Before  he  entered  the  city,  he  ordained  a  deacon  in 
one  of  Chrysostom's  churches.  He  refused  to  hold  com- 
munion with  Chrysostom  himself;  threatened  that  he  would, 
publicly,  in  the  church,  at  Constantinople,  with  a  loud  voice, 
condemn  Origen,  and  all  who  defended  him.  He  came 
to  the  church,  but  being  warned  by  Chrysostom  that  he 
might  expose  himself  to  danger  from  the  people,  he  desisted. 
He  tried  to  persuade  the  empress  that  God  would  spare  the 
life  of  her  son,  (who  was  then  dangerously  ill,)  if  she 
would  only  persecute  the  defenders  of  Origen.  He  de- 
fended praying  for  the  dead :  Aerius  opposed  it.  So  he 
put  Aerius  into  the  list  of  heretics.  Bishop  Taylor  him- 
self says,  '  He  that  considers  the  catalogues  [of  heresies] 
as  they  are  collected  by  Epiphanius,  &c.,  shall  find  that 
many  are  reckoned  for  heretics  for  opinions  in  matters 
disputable,  and  undetermined,  and  of  no  consequence ;  and 
that  in  these  catalogues  of  heretics  there  are  men  num- 
bered for  heretics,  which  by  every  side  respectively  are 
acquitted,  so  that  there  is  no  company  of  men  in  the  world 
that  admit  these  catalogues  as  good  records,  or  sufficient 
sentences  of  condemnation.'  "*  And  Dr.  Cave,  an  unex- 
ceptionable authority  with  high  Churchmen,  says,  "He 
[Epiphanius]  was  one  of  no  great  judgment  and  reasoning; 
he  generally  took  his  account  of  things  upon  trust,  suffer- 
ing himself  to  be  imposed  upon  by  those  narratives  which 
the  several  parties  had  published  of  the  proceedings, 
either  of  their  own  or  of  their  adversaries'  side,  without  due 
search  and  examination,  which  ran  him  upon  infinite  mis- 
takes,  inconsistencies,  and  confusions  "f 

Chrysostom,  who  flourished  A.  D.  400,  says,  "  Paul, 
speaking  about  bishops  and  their  ordination,  what  they 
ought  to  possess,  and  from  what  they  must  abstain,  having 
omitted  [1  Tim.  iii]  the  order  of  presbyters,  he  passes  on 
to  that  of  deacons.  Why  so,  I  ask?  because  the  differ^ 
ence  between  the  bishop  and  the  presbyter  is  almost  no- 
thing.  For  the  presidency  of  the  churches  is  committed 
to  presbyters,  and  the  qualifications  which  the  apostle 
requires  in  a  bishop,  he  requires  in  a  presbyter  also ;  being 
above  them  solely  by  their  ordination,   and  this  is  the 

*  Lib.  of  Prophes.,  sec.  2.    Dupin,  Biblioth  Patrum.  cent.  4th. 
f  Dr.  John  Edwards'  Pratrologia,  p.  53,  ed.  1731,  8vo. 
6* 


130        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ONLY  thing  they,  the  bishops,  seem  to  have  more  than 
presbyters."*  This  last  remark  refers  to  what  is  supposed 
to  be  the  sheet  anchor  of  episcopacy,  in  the  modern  sense, 
that  is,  the  power  of  ordination. \  Chrysostom  says  they 
were  the  same  in  every  thing  else.  Even  as  to  ordination 
he  only  mentions  the  fact  of  the  difference,  and  not  the 
divine  right.  And  as  to  the  fact,  his  language  is  by  no 
means  decided.  Jerome  also  himself  has  a  remark  of  a 
similar  kind  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius :  "  What  does  the 
bishop  which  the  presbyter  may  not  do,  except  ordination  X" 
The  interpretation  of  the  one  may  be  sufficient  for  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  other.  Jerome,  then,  it  should  be 
remembered,  does,  in  that  Epistle,  most  plainly  declare  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same.  He  then  says,  that 
♦'  after  the  apostles'  times,  one  presbyter  was  placed  over 
the  rest  as  a  remedy  against  schism.  For  at  Alexandria, 
from  the  evangelist  Mark  up  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius, 
the  bishops,  (about  A.  D.  250)  the  presbyters  always 
ELECTED  one  from  among  themselves,  and  placed  him  in  the 
higher  chair,  and  they,  the  presb}i;ers,  gave  him  the  name 
of  bishop  ;  in  the  same  manner  as  an  army  may  make  its 
general ;  or  as  deacons  elect  one  of  themselves  whose  in- 
dustry they  know,  and  call  him  archdeacon.  For  what 
does  a  bishop  do,"  (that  is,  now  he  means  about  A.  D.  400,) 
"  except  ordination,  v/hich  a  presbyter  may  not  do  ?"  Here 
then,  it  is  evident,  that  Jerome  speaks  simply  of  the  fact 
and  custom  which  had  then,  inhis  day,  become  established, 
as  to  what  bishops  do,  and  presbyters  may  not  do ;  not  of 

*  Com.  in  1  Tim.  iii. 

t  There  is  a  radical  ahsiirdity  at  the  bottom  of  all  these  mighty  pre- 
tensions about  the  power  of  ordination.  It  is  as  plain  as  that  two  and 
two  make  four,  that  the  greater  always  includes  the  less.  Now  the 
two  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are  the  greatest  ritual 
ordinances  in  the  Christian  church.  A  sacrament  is,  by  all  divines, 
considered  above  all  other  ritual  ordinances.  Ordination  is  not  a  sa- 
crament. It  is  therefore  less  than  a  sacrament.  He  that  has  power 
and  authority  to  perform  the  greater,  has  power  and  authority  to  per- 
form the  less.  All  presbyters,  by  the  confession  of  our  opponents,  have 
power  and  authority  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper,  the  greater :  all  presbyters,  therefore,  have  power  and 
authority  to  administer  ordination,  the  less.  This,  to  a  reasonable  mind, 
would  settle  the  whole  question  :  but  as  the  prejudices  of  some  people 
are  so  strong  as  to  take  away  the  force  of  clear  reason,  we  have  met 
the  opponents  on  their  own  ground. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        131 

the  power  or  right  of  presbyters,  or  that  they  could  not  by 
divine  right  do  what  the  bishops  did.  This  custom,  or 
ecclesiastical  arrangement,  which,  for  the  honour  of  the 
bishop  and  the  church,  made  ordination  generally  a  prero- 
gative of  the  bishop's  office,  Jerome  advises  the  presbytery 
to  comply  with.  Therefore  "  they  may  tio^,"  because  of 
this  custom,  especially  without  the  bishop's  license,  or- 
dain. Any  other  supposition  would  make  Jerome  contra- 
dict, in  the  same  page,  what  he  had  most  firmly  maintain- 
ed. His  illustrations  show  the  same.  The  custom  of  the 
church  at  Alexandria  was  evidently  intended  by  him  as  an 
example  of  ordination  hy  presbyters  ;  else  why  mention  it 
as  something  which  had  ceased,  in  his  day,  to  be  common. 
The  presbyters,  at  Alexandria,  prior  to  A.  D.  250,  elected 
one  of  themselves,  placed  him  in  the  chair,  {all  the  conse- 
cration he  had) — and  gave  him  his  title  of  bishop.  It  is 
trifling  to  say,  as  Episcopalians  do,  '  Perhaps  there  were 
bishops  present  who  laid  on  hands  and  consecrated  him.' 
This  is  little  short  of  contradicting  Jerome.  He  certainly 
makes  the  presbyters  the  doers  of  all  that  was  done  in 
making  the  bishop.  The  case  of  the  army  making  its  ge- 
neral is  another  instance  which  he  mentions  in  illustration 
of  his  position.  Every  schoolboy  knows  that  the  Roman 
army  in  those  days  frequently  created  their  generals  by 
acclamation  ;  and  it  is  to  these  proceedings  Jerome  alludes  : 
the  lawfulness  of  the  thing  was  no  more  necessary  to  his 
argument,  than  the  laufulness  of  the  unjust  steward'' s  conduct 
to  our  Lord's  argument.  It  is  they«c^,  and  its  bearing,  which 
are  important.  The  deacons,  too,  then  appointed  07i€  of 
themselves  as  their  head,  calling  him  archdeacon ;  so  the 
presbyters  make  a  presbyter  their  head,  and  call  him  bishop. 
The  army  made  the  general ;  the  deacons  the  archdea- 
cons ;  and  the  presbyters  made  the  bishop.  This  is 
plainly  the  sense.  Presbyters,  then,  ordained  even 
BISHOPS,  in  the  see  of  Alexandria,  from  the  time  of  St. 
Mark  up  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  that  is,  for  about  the 
first  two  hundred  years  after  Christ.  What  need  be  clearer^ 
than  that  Jerome's  exception  only  regards  the  custom  of 
the  church  in  his  day,  (about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  what  he  refers  to  at  Alexandria,)  and  not  the  power 
or  right  of  the  presbyters  to  ordain.  Stillingfleet  has 
moreover  quoted,  in  confirmation  of  this  view,  the  testi- 


132       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

mony  of  Eutychius,  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who 
expressly  affirms,  "  that  the  twelve  presbyters  constituted 
by  Mark,  upon  the  vacancy  of  the  see  did  choose  of  their 
number  one  to  be  head  over  the  rest,  and  the  other  eleven 
did  lay  their  hands  upon  him,  and  blessed  him,  and  made 
him  patriarch,"  or  bishop.*  The  manner  it  seems  varied, 
the  thing  was  the  same.  There  never  was  any  universally 
established  manner  of  making  bishops  in  the  Christian 
church,  excepting  the  Scriptural  one,  by  which  every  man 
is  made  a  minister  and  a  bishop  at  once,  by  one  and  the 
same  ordination.  Chrysostom's  language  is  similar  to  Je- 
rome's, and  admits  the  same  interpretation.  He  positively 
says,  that  the  bishop  had  then  nothing  above  presbyters 
but  ordination ;  and  speaks  douhtingly  as  to  this :  "  This 
[ordination]  is  the  only  thing  they  seem  to  have  more  than 
presbyters."  But  even  were  he  to  speak  with  the  utmost 
certainty,  his  language  only  states  the  fact  and  not  the 
law.  It  was  the  fact,  I  believe,  generally,  in  Chrysostom's 
days,  for  the  honour  of  the  bishop  and  the  church,  and  (as 
they  supposed)  to  prevent  divisions,  that  bishops  only  or- 
dained bishops.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  all  we 
have  said  to  show  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters 
by  divine  right.  However,  Calderwood,  Alt.  Damascen. 
p.  160,  shows  that  a  more  accurate  translation  of  Chrysos- 
tom's language  will  give  a  very  different  view  of  his  mean- 
ing :  the  latter  member  of  his  sentence,  correctly  translated, 
being  as  follows  : — "  The  bishop  being  above  the  pres- 
byter solely  by  their"  (the  presbyters')  "  suffrage  ;  and  by 
this  alone  they  seem  to  assume  an  unjust  superiority  over 
the  presbyters."  This  proves  that  Chrysostom  considered 
bishops  and  presbyters  to  be  really  and  by  divine  right  the 
same  in  all  things,  and  taxes  the  bishops  with  abusing  the 
power  given  them  by  the  suffrage  of  the  presbyters,  inju- 
riously to  depress  those  very  presbyters. 

The  questions  on  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  found 
in  the  Works  of  St.  Augustine,  are  mostly  quoted  as  his  by 
^  Episcopal  writers :  they  could  not  find  fault  with  me, 
therefore,  if  I  claim  their  authority  as  his  authority. 
However,  it  is  supposed  they  were  written  by  a  more  an- 
cient author  than  Augustine.  In  quest.  101,  while  rebuking 
some  deacons  who  put  themselves  before  the  presbyters, 
*  Stillingfleet's  Iren.,  p.  274. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        133 

he  says,  "  The  superior  order  contains  the  inferior ;  for  a 
presbyter  may  perform  the  office  of  a  deacon,  an  exorcist, 
or  a  reader.  By  a  presbyter  you  must  understand  a  bishop  ; 
as  Paul  the  apostle  proves,  when  instructing  Timothy, 
whom  he  ordained  a  presbyter,  what  sort  of  a  person  he 
ought  to  be  whom  he  was  to  ordain  a  bishop.  For  what 
is  a  bishop  but  the  first  presbyter,  that  is,  the  highest 
priest?  Finally,  he  addresses  such  as  fellow-presbyters, 
fellow-priests.  But  does  the  bishop  ever  address  the  dea- 
cons as  fellow-deacons  ?  No  indeed  ;  and  the  reason  is 
because  they  are  so  much  inferior. — For  in  Alexandria, 
and  through  the  whole  of  Egypt,  the  presbyter  consecrates 
[that  is,  confirms]  when  the  bishop  is  not  present."  Here 
Timothy  is  a  presbyter ;  he  as  a  presbyter  ordains  bish- 
ops. St,  Paul  is  said  to  mean  a  bishop  when  he  speaks 
of  a  presbyter :  and  presbyters  also  perform  confirmation, 
in  the  bishop's  absence,  "  through  the  whole  of  Egypt. ''^ 

That  presbj-ters  both  possessed  and  exercised  the  right 
of  ordaining  ministers  in  the  primitive  church,  appears 
moreover  by  the  thirteenth  canon  of  the  council  of  Ancyra, 
A.  D.  315  : — "  'Tis  not  allowed  to  village  bishops  to  or- 
dain presbyters  or  deacons  ;  nor  is  it  allowed  even  to 
city  presbyters  to  do  this  in  another  diocess  without 
the  license  of  the  bishop.''"'  High  Church  Episcopalians 
declare  they  cannot  understand  this  canon !  It  must  be 
imperfect,  or  corrupt,  or  I  know  not  what.  So  Socinians 
treat  the  Scriptures  when  they  are  plainly  opposed  to  their 
schemes.  However,  no  man  who  understands  the  Greek 
text  of  the  canon  will  deny  that  the  above  is  a  fair  translation. 
Here,  then,  in  the  first  place,  the  chor-episcopi,  or  country 
bishops,  are  utterly  forbid  to  ordain,  and  are  evidently 
treated  as  inferior  to  city  presbyters.  Now  Bishop 
Taylor,  and  many  other  learned  Episcopalians, /wZZy  admit 
that  these  chor-episcopi,  or  village  bishops,  had,  by  divine 
right,  the  power  to  ordain.  Therefore  the  power  of  the 
city  PRESBYTER  to  ORDAIN  prcsbytcrs  and  deacons,  is 
clearly  supposed  in  the  canon  ;  and  is  not  taken  away,  but 
only  limited  in  its  exercise.  He  was  not  to  ordain  "  in 
another  bishop's  diocess  without  his  license  ;"  very  proper  : 
but  then  it  is  as  clear  as  though  the  canon  had  said  so, 
that  the  city  presbyter  might  and  did  ordain  presbyters 
and  deacons  in  the  diocess  of  his  own  bishop  ;  and  might 


134       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

do  the  same  in  any  other  diocess  hy  the  license  of  the 
bishop  of  that  diocess.  It  seems  they  had  been  guilty  of 
the  irregularity  referred  to  in  the  canon.  However,  there 
is  no  limitation  as  to  the  diocess  where  they  reside  ; 
though  the  rules  of  order  would  require  such  things  to  be 
done  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop.  Here,  then,  is 
another  triumphant  proof  of  the  power  of  presbyters  to 
ordain. 

There  is  considerable  evidence  arising  to  the  same  point 
from  the  illustrious  council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  which 
condemned  Arianism,  and  so  greatly  promoted  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  orthodox  faith  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  A  bishop,  they  say,  was  to  be  constituted  by 
bishops.  But  in  their  Epistle  to  the  church  of  Alexandria, 
and  the  other  churches  of  Egypt,  they  seem  to  speak  of 
presbyters  as  still  frequently  ordaining  presbyters.  They 
are  speaking  of  the  clergy  who  had  not  gone  away  in  the 
division  with  Miletius.  Their  words  are : — "  But  as  for 
those  who,  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  your  prayers,  have 
been  found  in  no  schism,  but  have  ever  remained  imma- 
culate in  the  Catholic  Church,  it  pleased  the  holy  synod 
that  they  should  have  power  to  ordain,  and  give  up  the 
names  of  such  as  were  worthy  to  be  the  clergy ;  and  in 
short,  to  do  all  things  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  law 
and  sanction."*  The  synod  took  away  this  power  from 
all  the  Miletian  clergy  who  had  made  division  ;  but  as  to 
those  of  the  clergy  of  Alexandria,  and  the  other  churches 
of  Egypt,  who  had  not,  (hey  allowed  their  power  of  ordain- 
ing, &LC.,  to  REMAIN.  Valesius  thinks  Christophorson  is 
mistaken  in  applying  this  passage  to  presbyters  ;  but  Vale- 
sius's  reasons  do  not  invalidate  Christophorson's  view. 
For  even  as  to  those  from  whom  this  power  of  ordaining 
was  taken  away,  the  Epistle  says,  they  were  to  "  continue 
possessed  of  their  dignitv  and  office,  but  yet  they  were 
to  acknowledge  themselves  always  inferior  to  all  those 
that  had  been  approved  of  in  every  diocess  and  church, 
and  who  had  been  ordained  before  by  our  dearest  colleague 
in  the  sacred  function,  Alexander."  Now  how  could 
BISHOPS  retain  their  honour  and  ojfice,  in  the  same  diocess, 
while  other  bishops  over  them  had  the  sole  honour  and 
office  of  bishops  in  those  diocesses  ?  This  is  absurd.  It 
*  Socrat.  Eccles.  Hist.,  lib.  1,  c.  9. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       135 

remains,  therefore,  that  they  spake  of  presbyters.  These 
presbyters,  their  language  shows,  both  possessed  and  exer- 
cised the  power  of  ordaining  presbyters  and  deacons; 
though  at  that  time  they  direct  that  bishops  should  ordain 
bishops. 

The  regulations  about  ordination  in  the  Christian  church 
appear  to  have  been  chiefly  derived  from  the  regulations 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue.  To  make  this  plain,  we  will 
here  repeat  the  statement  of  those  Jewish  regulations  as 
given  by  Maimonides,  and  will  add  a  few  remarks  upon 
them.  "  In  ancient  times,"  says  he,  (that  is,  the  times  be- 
fore Hillel  the  elder,  who  died  about  ten  years  after  the 
birth  of  Christ,)  "  every  one  who  was  ordained  himself, 
ordained  his  scholars.  But  the  wise  men,  in  order  to 
show  particular  reverence  for  Hillel  the  elder,  made  a  rule 
that  no  one  should  be  ordained  without  the  permission  of 
the  president,  neither  should  the  president  ordain  any  one 
without  the  presence  of  the  father  of  the  sanhedrim,  nor 
the  father  without  the  presence  of  the  president.  But,  as 
to  other  members  of  the  sanhedrim,  any  one  might  ordain, 
(having  obtained  permission  of  the  president,)  by  joining 
with  himself  two  others  ;  for  ordination  cannot  regularly 
be  performed  except  three  join  in  the  ordination."*  "  In 
the  ancient  times"  of  the  church,  "  any  one  who  was 
ordained  himself,  ordained  others :"  the  presbyters  ordained 
Timothy,  and  each  church  "  was  ruled  by  the  presbyters 
in  common."  Then,  probably,  about  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  one  presbyter  was  elected  by  the  rest 
to  preside  in  the  presbytery,  and  over  the  general  acts 
of  the  church.  This  presiding  presbyter  was,  for  dis- 
tinction's sake,  called  bishop :  a  term  which  up  to  that 
time  had  been  common  to  all  the  presbyters,  but  which 
henceforward  became  appropriated  to  this  presiding  pres- 
byter. For  the  honour  of  this  bishop,  or  president,  "  a 
rule  was  made  that  no  one  should  be  ordained  without  his 
permission,"  neither  could  he  regularly  ordain  without  the 
permission  of  the  presbyters,  as  is  most  clearly  proved  by 
many  examples  in  Cyprian  himself,  who  apologized  for 
ordaining  a  reader  or  subdeacon  without  their  permission, 
even  at  the  time  when  the  rage  of  his  enemies  made  it 
unsafe  for  him  personally  to  consult  them.     With  the  per- 

*  Vid.  Selden  De  Syned.,  lib.  2,  c.  vii,  p.  173,  4to.  Amstel.,  1679. 


136        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

mission  of  the  bishop,  however,  the  presbyters  continued 
to  ordain,  as  occasion  required,  for  the  first  three  hundred 
years  :  see  the  proof  of  this  in  the  language  of  Firmilian, 
the  celebrated  bishop  of  Cesarea,  in  Cappadocia,  and  the 
decisions  of  the  councils  of  Ancyra  and  Nice,  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages.  At  Alexandria,  it  seems  that  the  custom 
for  the  presbyters  there  to  ordain  their  president  or  bishop 
continued  until  A.  D.  250,  as  Jerome  testifies.  But  the 
power  and  authority  of  the  bishops  gradually  increased  by 
their  uniting  to  support  each  other ;  by  the  pride  and  am- 
bition of  many  of  them,  (for  the  fathers  themselves  give 
abundant  evidence  of  this,)  and  by  their  pleas  that  sub- 
mission to  their  authority  was  essential  to  prevent  schisms, 
and  to  the  peace  of  the  church.  They  ventured  at  length 
in  the  council  of  Nice,  not  indeed  to  prohibit  presbyters 
from  ordaining  presbyters  ;  but  to  make  a  law  that  bishops 
ALONE  should  ordain  bishops.  Of  course,  as  the  council 
was  principally  made  up  of  bishops,  there  would  not  be 
any  opposition.  Yet  Ambrose  expressly  declares  that  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  had  "  one  ordination,"  that  is,  really 
such ;  as  the  consecration  of  bishops  is  only  a  ceremony. 
Such  is  the  origin,  and  such  is  the  history  of  episcopal 
ordinations.  Presbyters  still  unite  with  bishops  in  ordain- 
ing presbyters  in  the  Church  of  England,  though  bishops 
alone  ordain  bishops.  If  this  be  used  as  a  matter  oi pru- 
dential arrangement  by  a  particular  branch  of  the  Christian 
church,  it  may  be  justified  on  the  principle  that  such  non- 
essential things  may  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  each  church 
to  determine  ;  but  when  it  becomes  urged  as  divine  law ; 
when,  upon  this  principle,  the  ministers  of  churches  who 
use  no  such  episcopal  ordinations,  are  declared  to  be  no 
ministers,  and  all  their  ordinances  vain  ;  here  the  whole 
question  is  altered  altogether :  the  peace  of  the  Christian 
world  at  large  is  broken  ;  the  ministers  and  people  of  all 
other  churches  are  insulted  ;  a  monstrous  system  of  spirit- 
ual tyranny  is  introduced ;  and  a  many-headed  Popery  is 
established  upon  this  shallow  pretence  of  the  sole  au- 
thority of  bishops  by  divine  right. 

That  bishops  ordaining  or  consecrating  bishops  is  a 
nonessential,  demonstrably  follows  from  the  proofs  that 
have  been  given  in  these  pages,  that  the  order  of  bishops 
itself  is  a  mere  matter  of  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  and 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       137 

has  no  divine  right.  At  first  they  were  made  merely  by 
the  election  of  their  fellow-presbyters,  as  in  the  church  of 
Alexandria,  for  nearly  two  hundred  years.  Then  it  seems 
some  ceremony  was  used  in  placing  them  in  the  higher 
chair  or  throne,  as  it  was  called ;  so  the  term  for  it  came 
to  be  ENTHRONizATioN.  Yct  SO  far  was  it  from  impress- 
ing any  indelible  character,  as  they  call  it ;  or  conferring, 
as  an  act,  extraordinary  powers,  forming  a  distinct  order, 
that  this  enthronization  or  consecration  was  frequently 
repeated,  when  an  individual  was  removed  from  one 
bishopric  to  another.  So,  for  instance,  Socrates,*  speak- 
ing of  Miletius,  who  first  had  been  bishop  of  Sebastia, 
afterward  of  Beraea,  but  after  this  was  sent  for  by  the  in- 
habitants of  Antioch  to  be  their  bishop,  says  that  here,  at 
Antioch,  another,  a  third  enthronization,  was  performed. 
Many  cases  of  a  similar  character  might  be  given.  And, 
indeed,  that  the  consecration  of  bishops  was  not  considered 
at  the  Reformation  to  be,  like  ordination,  incapable  of  repe- 
tition, will  be  evident  from  the  fact,  that  many  bishops  were 
then  consecrated  anew  when  translated  to  other  bishoprics  ; 
as  may  be  seen  by  the  instances  and  the  words  given  from 
the  registers,  in  Courayer  on  English  Ordinations. f  The 
Oxford  Tract-men  have  a  little  outwitted  themselves  in 
publishing  Archbishop  Cranmer's  translation  of  Justice 
Jonas's  "  Sermon  on  Apostolical  Succession  and  the  Power 
of  the  Keys,"  as  containing  the  "  mature  and  deliberate 
judgment"  of  Cranmer  on  these  subjects.  For,  after 
speaking  of  ordination  as  performed  by  the  apostles  upon 
others  for  "  the  ministration  of  God's  word,^^  he  adds,  "And 
THIS  was  the  consecratioii,  orders,  and  unction  of  the  apos- 
tles, whereby  they,  at  the  beginning,  made  bishops  and 
priests,  and  this  shall  continue  in  the  church  even  to  the 
world's  end.  And  whatsoever  rite  or  ceremony  hath  been 
added  more  than  this,  cometh  of  man's  ordinance  and  policy, 
and  is  not  commanded  by  God's  word."  Now  Cranmer, 
we  shall  see,  in  the  next  section,  distinctly  maintained 
that  bishops  and  priests  were,  by  the  law  of  God,  the  same. 
Here  he  says  that  that  consecration,  orders,  and  unction 
whereby  the  apostles  appointed  individuals  to  the  minis- 
tration of  God's  ,word,  was  the  only  real  ordination  they 

*  Eccles.  Hist.,  part  ii,  chap.  44. 

+  Page  65,  English  translation,  London,  1725,  8vo. 


138        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

had ;  for  "  whatsoever  rite  or  ceremony  had  been  added 
more  than  this,  cometh  of  marCs  ordinance  and  poUcy,  and 
is  not  commanded  by  God's  word."  "  Cranmer  and  Bar- 
low," says  Courayer,  "  affirm  that  the  consecration  [of  a 
bishop]  is  not  necessary,  and  that  the  designation  [or  ap- 
pointing to  the  office]  is  sufficient."* 

We  wish  to  study  brevity ;  otherwise  it  would  be  easy 
to  show  at  length  the  same  point,  viz.,  that  the  ordination 
or  consecration  of  bishops,  as  distinct  from  their  ordination 
as  presbyters,  has  nothing  in  it  but  a  mere  human  ceremony 
of  appointing  an  individual  to  some  specific  duties  in  the 
church.  The  word  of  God  has  not  a  syllable  upon  it: 
the  vefore  it  is  utterly  void  of  divine  authority.  There  is 
not  a  particle  of  genuine  evidence  upon  it  for  the  first 
hundred  years  after  Christ.  It  never  had,  in  any  age,  any 
thing  that  essentially  distinguished  it  from  the  ordination 
of  a  presbyter.  This  is  abundantly  evident  from  Morinus's 
celebrated  work  on  Ordinations.  There  it  is  shown,  that 
in  every  thing  but  imposition  of  hands,  different  churches 
and  different  ages  have  varied  from  each  other ;  and,  in 
most  of  the  matters,  have  varied  without  end.  Now  that 
cannot  be  essential  to  a  thing  which  sometimes  does  not 
exist  with  it  at  all ;  and  this  is  the  case  with  every  thing 
belonging  to  the  consecration  of  bishops,  excepting  impo- 
sition of  hands  ;  and  even  this,  in  some  cases,  was  not 
used.  Imposition  of  hands  is  common  to  the  ordination  of 
a  presbyter  as  well  as  to  that  of  a  bishop ;  it  cannot  be 
common  to  both,  and  yet  essentially  distinguish  the  one 
from  the  other ;  there  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  the  conse- 
cration of  a  bishop,  nor  ever  was,  that  essentially  distin- 
guished it  from  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter.  If  it  be 
pleaded  that  the  church  has  appointed  words  to  be  used  at 
this  consecration  to  distinguish  it  from  that  of  a  presbyter ; 
we  grant  it.  But  then  the  church  never  had  any  authority 
from  Scripture  to  do  more  in  this  than  to  make  it  a  pru- 
dential ecclesiastical  arrangement.  The  reformers  of  the 
Church  of  England  did  not  even  appoint  any  words  for  the 
act  of  consecration  to  distinguish  the  office  of  a  bishop 
from  that  of  a  presbyter :  the  words  that  now  distinguish 
them  were  added  in  later  times. 

*  P.  147;  and  see  Burnet's  Ref.,  vol.  i,  Record,  No.  21. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        139 

If,  then,  the  consecration  of  bishops  is  a  mere  human 
ceremony,  it  is  impossible  that  the  act  of  bishops,  as 
hishops,  in  ordination,  can  have  any  divine  efficacy  or 
authority  above  that  of  presbyters.  Bishops  may  ordain 
one  another  for  ever,  but  this  would  never  change  the 
matter.  A  cipher  multiplied  by  a  cipher  always  produces  a 
cipher.  All  the  authority,  then,  that  bishops  have  to  ordain 
men  to  the  ministration  of  God's  word  and  sacraments, 
arises  from  their  authority  as  presbyters,  and  from  this 
ALONE.  Scores  of  bishops  in  the  Romish  Church  never 
were  presbyters  :  yet  these  men  have  ordained  presbyters 
and  bishops  in  the  church  without  number.  Through  these 
our  high  Churchmen  have  received  their  boasted  orders. 
Such  is  their  vaunted  "  unbroken  series  of  valid  ordina- 
tions" and  apostolical  succession ! 

The  tenacity  of  high  Churchmen  to  their  exclusive  and 
intolerant  scheme  must  be  my  apology  to  the  reader  for 
the  length  of  this  section.  We  will  now  state  the  result 
of  the  inquiry  : — • 

1 .  No  clear  evidence  appears  that  any  of  the  fathers  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  or  any  council,  ever  maintained 
this  high  Church  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  bishops 
ALONE  to  be  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  to  ordain  and 
GOVERN  pastors  as  well  as  people. 

2.  No  distinction  appears  between  the  office  of  pres- 
byter and  bishop  in  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  nor 
in  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp,  the  most  ancient  emd  genuine 
pieces  we  have  in  the  first  century. 

3.  In  the  second  and  following  centuries,  a  custom 
GRADUALLY  bccomcs  established  for  one  presbyter  to  be 
placed  over  the  others ;  and  the  term  bishop,  or  superin- 
tendent, becomes  appropriated  to  him  alone. 

4.  The  ancients  assign,  as  the  reason  for  this  arrange- 
ment, the  honour  of  the  church — the  peace  of  the  church — 
the  prevention  of  schisms  or  divisions — and  the  unity  of  the 
whole.  So  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Hilary  or  Ambrose,  Augus- 
tine and  Jerome. 

5.  Presbyters  presided  over  the  church ;  in  some 
places  it  would  seem  chiefly :  but  even  where  a  superin- 
tendency  had  taken  place,  they  appear  with  the  bishop,  as 
sitting  to  'rule  in  common  with  him ;  and  without  them  he 
could  not  do  any  thing  of  importance  in  the  church.     So 


140        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Ignatius,  Tertullian,  Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Cor- 
nelius, Firmilian,  and  Jerome. 

6.  Presbyters  ordained.  This  is,  as  to  the  fact^ 
proved  by  Firmilian,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Cesarea,  in 
Cappadocia ;  by  the  custom  of  the  church  of  Alexandria 
for  the  first  two  hundred  years  after  Christ ;  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Jerome  and  Eutychius ;  and  by  the  council  of 
Ancyra,  and  the  council  of  Nice.  The  right  of  power 
also  necessarily  follows  from  their  being  the  same  order 
as  bishops. 

7.  Presbyters  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles;  this 
is  distinctly  stated  by  Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  and  Jerome.  We 
have  not  yet  given  a  most  striking  passage  of  Jerome  on 
this  point.  Hear  him  then :  "  Do  you  approach  to  the 
clergy  ? — God  forbid  that  I  should  speak  disparagingly 
of  the  CLERGY :  they  are  successors  to  the  degree  of 
APOSTLES, — qui  apostolico  gradui  succedentesJ^  And,  after 
mentioning  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  their  station,  he 
says,  "  Non  est  facile  stare  loco  Pauli ;  tenere  gradum 
Petri" — "  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  stand  in  the  place  of 
Paul,  nor  in  the  degree  of  Peter."* 

8.  The  ONLY  true  and  indispensable  succession  to  the 
apostles  is  the  succession  of  faith,  and  not  oi  persons : 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  Ambrose.  This  last  bishop  says, 
"  They  have  not  the  succession  of  Peter,  who  have  not  the 
faith  of  Peter."t 

The  conclusion  is,  then,  that  in  the  purest  Christian 
antiquity,  bishops  and  presbyters  were,  by  divine  right,  the 
SAME  ;  "  all  the  difference  which  existed,  in  fact,  between 
them  was  almost  nothing ;"  and  was  merely  by  custom,  or 
the  use  of  the  church,  as  a  prudential  measure,  to  promote 
order,  peace,  and  unity.  Ordination  by  presbyters,  and 
all  other  acts  of  presbyters,  are,  by  divine  right,  equally 
VALID  with  those  of  bishops :  the  succession  of  faith  is  the 
only  true  succession.  Ministers  and  churches  who  do  not 
hold  this — who  adulterate  it — are  to  be  forsaken  ;  and 
those  alone  received  as  truly  apostolical  successors, 
ministers,  ordinances,  and  churches,  where  this  faith  is 
preached  as  the  apostles  preached  it,  and  as  they  left  it  to 
us  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  their  last  will  and  testa- 
ment, sealed  as  with  their  oath,  and  their  blood.     Let  the 

*  Epist.  ad  Heliodorum  de  Vita  Eremetica.  t  De  Penitentia. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       141 

semi-popish  divines,  allowed  improperly  in  the  Church  of 
England,  and  the  thorough-going  Papists  of  our  country, 
look  about  them.  Their  succession  is  not  the  succession 
of  the  apostles,  nor  of  the  earliest  fathers  ;  but  cifabri' 
cation  of  their  own,  based  \v^ow  false  assumptions,  and  built 
up  by  bigotry  and  intolerance,  out  of  human  traditions, 
forged  authorities,  and  abominable  idolatries.  See  section 
X  of  this  Essay, 


APPENDIX  TO  SECTION  VI. 

ON  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  BISHOPS  OF  THE  SEVEN  CHURCHES 
MENTIONED  IN  THE  REVELATION  ;  AND  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  DIFFICCLTT  OF 
ACCOUNTING  FOR  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  EPISCOPACY  AT  SO  EARLY  AN  AGE  OF 
THE   CHURCH. 

There  are  two  points  which  Episcopal  writers  consider 
of  much  importance  in  this  controversy,  and  which  we 
have  not  yet  introduced.  They  might  chronologically 
have  been  introduced  sooner ;  but  the  reader  will  here 
examine  them  with  greater  advantage,  after  the  preceding 
discussion :  they  are, 

1.  As  to  what  are  called  the  bishops  of  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia,  mentioned  in  the  Revelation  of  St. 
John :   and, 

2.  The  supposed  diihculty  of  accounting  for  the  exist- 
ence of  episcopacy  at  so  early  an  age  of  the  church,  ex- 
cept on  the  principle  that  it  is  jure  divino,  established  by 
divine  right. 

First,  then,  as  to  what  are  called  the  bishops  of  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia,  mentioned  in  the  Revelation  of 
St.  John.  As  most  of  the  difficulty  upon  both  these  points 
arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  words  bishop  or  episcopus, 
and  episcopacy,  let  it  be  premised  that  there  are  three 
different  senses  in  which  these  words  are  used  in  this 
controversy.  As  to  the  word  bishop : — this  word  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament,  1.  As  synonymous  with  the  word 
presbyter ;  "  the  names  are  common ;"  see  pages  83-86  of 
this  Essay ;  2.  Somewhere  in  the  second  or  third  century 
the  word  bishop  was  applied  to  distinguish  the  primus 
presbyter,  appointed  by  the  suffrages  of  the  other  presby- 
ters, and  by  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  as  superintendent 


143       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

of  ministers  and  people  ;  3.  High  Churchmen  use  it  for  an 
order  of  ministers  claiming  powers  and  authority  incom- 
patible with  the  office  of  presbyters.  Now  we  grant  there 
were  bishops  in  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  in  the  first 
sense ;  but  we  deny  that  there  is  any  solid  proof  of  their 
existence,  in  the  second  sense,  in  these  seven  churches. 
Clemens  Romanus,  who,  according  to  the  best  authority, 
wrote  A.  D.  96  to  the  church  at  Corinth,  (comparatively  in 
the  neighbourhood,)  mentions  not  a  syllable  about  a  primus 
presbyter  as  superintendent  over  the  presbyters.  Presby- 
ters, according  to  Clemens,  then  "  ruled  the  church  in  com- 
mon.'''' The  Revelation  is  supposed  to  have  been  written 
only  four  years  after  this  time.  As  to  bishops  in  the  third 
sense,  high  Church  bishops,  we  utterly  deny  that  there  is 
any  evidence  of  any  such  bishops  in  the  seven  churches. 
Even  the  corrupted  Epistles  of  Ignatius  would  not  sustain 
the  authority  of  high  Church  bishops  ;  for  presbyters  are 
there  made  equal  to  the  apostles:  are  they  so  with  high 
Church  bishops  ?  Nay,  so  far  from  this,  Bishop  Taylor 
maintains  that  bishops  only  are  properly  pastors,  §  25  ; 
doctors,  or  teachers,  §  26  ;  and  priests,  §  27 :  so  that,  on 
this  scheme,  poor  presbyters  are  only  a  sort  of  tolerated 
pastors,  existing  by  the  leave  of  the  bishops  :  see  §  9  of  his 
Episcopacy  Asserted.  As  to  tradition,  on  this  question 
there  is  none  that  can  be  surely  depended  upon.  Take,  for 
instance,  the  case  of  Timothy's  being  bishop  of  Ephesus. 
There  is  absolutely  none  that  gives  him  the  rights  and 
authority  of  a  high  Church  bishop.  But,  passing  the  ques- 
tion of  the  ki?id  of  episcopacy,  for  a  moment,  is  there  any 
satisfactory  proof  of  the  fact,  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of 
Ephesus,  one  of  these  seven  churches  ?  I  unhesitatingly 
answer.  There  is  not;  see  page  57  of  this  Essay.  Dr. 
Whitby  grants,  "  that  he  can  find  nothing  on  this  subject 
in  any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries."  But  then  he 
says  "  this  defect  is  abundantly  supplied  by  the  concurrent 
suffrage  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries."  Well,  let  us 
see.  He  refers  to  Eusebius  first,  and  very  properly :  for 
succeeding  authors  generally  took  their  reports  from  him. 
If  the  fountain  fails  us,  the  streams  must  fail  too.  Now 
Eusebius  honestly  confesses,  that  though  he  made  it  a 
main  point,  in  writing  his  history  of  the  early  ages  of  the 
church,  to  inquire  into  such  matters,  yet  all  was  dark,  and 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        143 

he  "  could  nowhere  find  so  much  as  the  bare  steps  of  any 
who  had  passed  that  path  of  inquiry  before  him,"  excepting 
something  like  "a  torch  here  and  there  afar  ojf."  Then, 
speaking  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  the  churches  founded  by 
them,  he  says,  "  Now  how  many,  and  what  sincere  fol- 
lowers of  them  have  been  approved  as  sufficient  to  take 
the  charge  of  those  churches  by  them  founded,  is  not  easy 
to  say,  except  such  and  so  many  as  may  he  collected  from 
the  words  of  Saint  Paul."  Does  this  sort  of  evidence 
abundantly  supply  the  defect  of  the  total  silence  of  the  first 
three  centuries?  And  nothing  better  is  to  be  found.  Euse- 
bius  says,  "  Timothy  is  reported  to  have  been  the  first  that 
was  chosen  to  the  bishopric  of  the  Ephesian  church."  He 
gives  no  authority;  which  he  always  does  when  he  has  it. 
The  report  is  evidently  only  guess-work,  in  its  origin, 
having  arisen  from  St.  Paul's  mentioning  his  name  in 
connection  with  Ephesus ;  but  see  page  57  of  this  Essay. 
The  stories  in  ecclesiastical  history  about  the  early  bishops 
and  founders  of  churches  are  generally  full  of  confusion 
and  contradiction ;  they  are  mostly  the  inventions  of  a 
later  age.  See  section  x.  But  were  we  to  grant  these 
statements  (confusion  as  they  are)  to  be  true,  they  never 
make  the  powers  and  authority  to  be  those  of  high  Church 
bishops  ;  the  preceding  discussion  has  abundantly  shown 
this.  The  result,  then,  of  this  investigation  of  ecclesias- 
tical authority,  and  of  tradition  on  this  point,  is,  that  there 
were  bishops  in  the  seven  churches  of  x\sia ;  for  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  spoken  of  by  Clemens  Romanus,  the 
best  authority  on  the  subject,  as  one  and  the  same ;  that 
there  is  no  clear  evidence  of  a  superintendency,  in  the 
seven  churches,  of  a  primus  presbyter  as  over  ministers 
and  people  ;  and  that,  as  to  high  Church  bishops,  it  would 
be  a  burlesque  to  compare  them  with  the  bishops  of  the 
seven  churches,  and  of  Clemens  Romanus. 

Secondly,  let  us  consider  the  supposed  difficulty  of  ac- 
counting for  the  existence  of  episcopacy  at  so  early  an  age 
of  the  church,  except  on  the  principle  that  it  is  jure  divino 
— established  by  divine  right.  Here  we  must  remember 
the  distinction  above  made,  as  to  the  different  meanings 
of  the  word  bishop :  the  same  applies  to  the  word  episco- 
pacy. 1.  We  grant  a  Scriptural  episcopacy  by  divine 
right,    in   which   bishops   and   presbyters    are   identical; 


144        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

2.  We  grant  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement  of  superintend- 
ency,  otherwise  called  episcopacy;  3.  We  grant  a  usurp- 
ation of  powers  and  authority  claimed  for  bishops  by 
divine  right,  otherwise  also  called  episcopacy.  Now  we 
have  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  Jirst^  or  Scriptural 
episcopacy.  The  second  also  is  easily  accounted  for,  as  is 
shown  from  Jerome,  &c.,  in  the  preceding  pages.  The 
third  kind,  viz.,  high  Church  episcopacy,  had  no  existence 
in  the  early  ages  of  the  church ;  we  have  not  to  account, 
therefore,  for  lohat  did  not  exist. 


SECTION  VIL 

THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AT  THE  REFORMATION  AGAINST 
THESE  CLAIMS. 

I  KNOW  it  would  be  in  vain  for  me  to  attempt  to  per- 
suade many  Church  people  that  I  am  not  writing  against 
the  Church  of  England.  They  mean  the  Church  as  ne- 
cessarily implying  a  divine  order  of  bishops,  6fc.  I  mean 
the  Church,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  reformers.* 
They  mean  the  Church  with  all  its  state  importance,  its 
wealth,  its  emolument,  &lc.  The  question  of  Church  and 
State,  in  the  abstract,  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  me  ; 
and  I  think  it  is  indifferent  also  in  the  eye  of  the  Scrip- 
lures.  At  the  utmost,  however,  the  connection  of  a  church 
with  the  state  is  only  a  circumstance :  it  is  not  essential  to 
the  existence  of  the  church.  The  church  is  spiritual. 
The  church  is,  under  God,  founded  on  its  doctrines,  dis- 
cipline, and  ordinances ;  on  the  faith  and  the  piety  of  its 
members.  In  this  light  I  view  the  Church  of  England. 
Taking  the  Church  of  England  in  this  view  on  the  ques- 
tion before  us,  as  constituted  at  the  Reformation,  I  write 

*  Froude,  a  leader  among  the  Oxford  Tract-men,  says,  "Really 
I  hate  the  Reformation  and  the  reformers  more  and  more." — "Why 
do  you  praise  Ridley '?  Do  you  know  sufficient  good  about  him  to 
counterbalance  the  fact  that  he  was  the  associate  of  Cranmer,  Peter 
Martyr,  and  Bucer  ■?  As  far  as  I  have  gone,  too,  I  think  better  than  I 
was  prepared  to  do  of  Bonner  and  Gardiner." — Fronde's  Remains. 
Very  consistent ! 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        145 

not  a  sentence  to  opposertt,  but  daily  pray  for  the  blessing 
of  God  upon  it,  and  upon  all  other  Christian  churches. 
Taking  the  words  as  frequently  used  by  bigoted  Church- 
men, I  utterly  deny  the  truth  and  Scriptural  character  of 
their  claims  and  pretensions  ;  I  believe  them  to  be  semi- 
popery,  and  necessarily  leading  to  bigotry,  intolerance,  and 
persecution.  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  this  is  the  nature 
and  tendency  of  these  claims,  I  think  myself  bound  in 
conscience  to  put  away  all  flattering  titles  as  to  any  men 
or  order  of  men,  and  to  speak  as  plainly  and  powerfully  as 
I  can  to  the  overthrow  of  this  system  from  its  foundation. 
Amicus  Socrates,  Amicus  Plato,  sed  magis  Amicus  Veritas  : 
— Socrates  is  my  friend,  Plato  is  my  friend,  but  Truth  is 
my  friend  above  all  friends. 

Having  come  through  the  Scriptural  view,  and  the  view 
of  the  fathers,  on  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters, 
we  proceed  to  show  that  the  English  reformers  main- 
tained that  bishops  and  presbyters  are,  by  divine  right,  the 
same  order  ;  if  this  be  proved,  the  whole  system  of  high 
Church  succession  men  falls  to  the  ground.  For  if  pres- 
byters be,  by  divine  right,  the  same  order  as  bishops,  then 
their  spiritual  power  and  authority  are  the  same ;  all  their 
ordinations  are  equal  to  episcopal  ordinations ;  the  minis- 
try and  ordinances  of  all  the  other  Protestant  churches  in 
Great  Britain,  and  on  the  continent,  as  being  administered 
by  presbyters,  are  equally  Scriptural  with  those  of  any 
modern  Episcopal  Church  :  consequently  all  these  exclu- 
sive and  arrogant  high  Church  claims  for  episcopal  ordi- 
nations, &c.,  will  vanish  before  the  light  and  power  of 
truth.  Bigotry  will  lose  its  support,  and  intolerance  its 
plea  for  persecution.  Christian  truth  and  Christian  liberty 
will  extend  their  hallowing  influences  over  the  whole  land. 
Then  shall  the  heathen  and  the  infidel  exclaim,  "  See 
how  these  Christians  love  one  another !" 

Wickliffe,  who  is  called  the  morning  star  of  the  Re- 
formation, says,  "  /  boldly  assert  one  thing,  viz.,  that  in  the 
primitive  church,  or  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul,  two  orders  of 
the  clergy  were  sufiicient,  that  is,  a  priest  and  a  deacon. 
In  like  manner  /  afiirm,  that  in  the  time  of  Paul  the  pres- 
byter and  the  bishop  were  names  of  the  same  ojffice.  This 
appears  from  the  third  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  and  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus. 

7 


146        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

And  the  same  is  testified  by  that  profound  theologian 
Jerome."* 

But  to  come  to  those  who  actually  formed  the  Articles, 
the  Book  of  Orders,  and  the  plan  of  the  government  of 
the  Church  of  England.  We  shall  give  every  reader  the 
opportunity  of  seeing,  with  his  own  eyes,  the  truth  of  the 
matter,  by  extracts  from  original  documents,  as  published 
by  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation. 
They  appear  to  be  the  determinations  of  a  convocation  of 
archbishops,  bishops,  and  divines  ;  for  Cromwell,  the  king's 
vicar  general,  sig?isjirst,  as  presiding  over  the  convocation. 
As  these  writers  use  the  expressions  "  deacons  or  minis- 
ters, priests  or  bishops,"  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  to 
the  most  cursory  reader,  that  they  mean  the  same  office 
by  each  of  the  terms  in  the  separate  clauses,  "  deacon  or 
minister ;  priests  or  bishops."  Bishop  Burnet  observes, 
"  Another  thing  is  that  both  in  this  writing,  and  in  the 
Necessary  Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man,  bishojjs  and  priests 
are  spoken  of  as  one  and  the  same  office."  Priest,  by 
these  reformers,  everywhere  means  presbyter. 

Bishop  Burnet's  remarks  on  the  nature  and  value  of 
these  documents,  shall  now  introduce  them.  He  says, 
"  After  some  of  the  sheets  of  this  History  were  wrought  off, 
I  met  with  manuscripts  of  great  authority,  out  of  which  I 
have  collected  several  particulars,  that  give  a  clear  light 
to  the  proceedings  in  those  times. — I  shall  here  add  them." 
"  In  this  writing,  bishops  and  priests  are  spoken  of  as  one 
and  the  same  office.  It  had  been  the  common  style  of  that 
og-e,"  says  he,  "  to  reckon  bishops  and  priests  as  the  same 
ojice:' 

Here  follow  extracts  from  the  document  called  "  A  De- 
claration made  of  the  Functions  and  Divine  Institution  of 
Bishops  and  Priests.     An  Original." 

"  As  touching  the  sacraments  of  the  holy  orders,  we 
will  that  all  bishops  and  preachers  shall  instruct  and 
teach  our  people  committed  by  us  unto  their  spiritual 
charge," 

"  First, — How  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  institute 
and  ordain  in  the  New  Testament — certain  ministers  or 
officers,  which  should  have  spiritual  power,  authority,  and 

*  Wickliffe's  Trialogus,  as  quoted  by  Vaughan  in  his  excellent  Life 
of  Wickliffe,  vol.  ii,  p.  275,  ed.  1831,  Lond. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        147 

commission  under  Christ,  to  preach,  &c.,  and  to  order  and 
consecrate  others  in  the  same  room,  order,  and  office, 
whereunto  they  be  called  and  admitted  themselves  :  and 
finally  to  feed  Christ's  people  like  good  pastors  and  rec- 
tors," &LC. 

"  Item  ;  That  this  office,  this  ministration,  this  power 
and  authority,  is  no  tyrannical  power,  having  no  certain 
laws  or  limits  within  the  which  it  ought  to  be  contained, 
nor  yet  none  absolute  power,  but  it  is  a  moderate  power^ 
subject,  determined,  and  restrained  \mioih.os.e  certain  limits 
and  ENDS  for  the  which  the  same  was  appointed  by  God's 
ordinance  ; — it  appeareth  that  the  same  was  a  limited  power 
and  ojjice,  ordained  especially  and  only  for  the  causes  and 
purposes  before  rehearsed." 

"  Item  ;  That  this  ofice,  this  power  and  authority,  was 
committed  and  given  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  unto  cer- 
tain persons  only,  that  is  to  say,  unto  priests  or  bishops, 
whom  they  did  elect,  call,  and  admit  thereunto  by  their 
prayer  and  imposition  of  their  hands." 

"  Secondly, — The  invisible  gift  of  grace  conferred  in 
this  sacrament  is  nothing  else  but  the  power,  the  offices, 
and  the  authority  before  mentioned :  the  visible  agid  out- 
ward sign  is  the  prayer  and  imposition  of  the  bishop's 
hands,  upon  the  person  which  receiveth  the  said  gift  or 
grace.  And  to  the  intent  the  church  of  Christ  should 
never  be  destitute  of  such  ministers  as  should  have  and 
execute  the  said  power  of  the  keys,  it  was  also  ordained 
and  commanded  by  the  apostles,  that  the  same  sacrament 
should  be  applyed  and  ministered  by  the  bishop  from  time 
to  time,  unto  such  other  persons  as  had  the  qualities,  which 
the  apostles  very  diligently  deseryve  [describe  ;]  as  it  ap- 
peareth evidently  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  and  his  Epistle  unto  Titus.  And 
surely  this  is  the  whole  virtue  and  efficacy,  and  the  cause 
also  of  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  as  it  is  found  in 
the  New  Testament ;  for  albeit  the  holy  fathers  of  the 
church  which  succeeded  the  apostles,  minding  to  beautifie 
and  ornate  the  church  of  Christ  with  all  those  things 
which  were  commendable  in  the  temple  of  the  Jews,  did 
devise  not  only  certain  other  ceremonies  than  be  before 
rehearsed,  as  tonsures,  rasures,  unctions,  and  such  other 
observances  to  be  used  in  the  administration  of  the  said 


148       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

sacraments,  but  did  also  institute  certain  inferiottr  orders  or 
degrees,  janitors,  lectors,  exorcists,  acolits  and  subdeacons, 
and  deputed  to  every  one  of  those  certain  offices  to  exe- 
cute in  the  church,  wherein  they  followed  undoubtedly  the 
example  and  rites  used  in  the  Old  Testament ;  yet  the 
TRUTH  IS,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of 
deacons  or  ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops  :  nor  is 
there  any  word  spoken  of  any  other  ceremony  used  in  the 
conferring  of  this  sacrament,  but  only  of  prayer,  and  the 
imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands." 

" Thomas  (Ld.)  Cromwell,  {the  King's  Vicar    Geoffrey  Downes. 
General.)  John  Skip. 
T.  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canteibury.        Cuthbert  Marshall. 
Edward,  Archbishop  of  York.  Marmaduke  Waldeby. 
John,  Bishop  of  London.  Robert  Oking. 
Cuthbert,  Bishop  of  Durham.  Nicholas  Heyth. 
John,  Bishop  of  Lincoln.  Ralph  Bradford. 
John,  Bishop  of  Bath.  Richard  Smith. 
Thomas,  Bishop  of  Ely.  Simon  Matthew. 
John,  Bishop  of  Bangor.  John  Prynn. 
Nicholas,  Bishop  of  Salisbury.  William  Buckmastre. 
Edward,  Bishop  of  Hereford.  "William  Maye. 
Hugo,^ishop  of  Worcester.  Nicholas  Wotton. 
John,  Bishop  of  Rochester.  Richard  Cox. 
Richard,  Bishop  of  Chichester.  John  Edmonds. 
Richard  Wolman.  Thomas  Robertson- 
John  Bell.  Thomas  Baret. 
William  ClyfFe.  John  Nase. 
Robert  Aldridge.  John  Barbar. 

(Some  other  hands  there  are  that  cannot  be  read,)  doctors 
of  laws  and  doctors  of  divinity. ^^* 

Here  the  reader  sees  the  Church  of  England  solemnly 
declare,  in  convocation,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  one 
and  the  same  ojffice.  Their  ''^ power.,  authority,  and  commis- 
sion under  Christ,"  are  made  equal  ;  in  which  is  expressly 
laid  down  their,  equal  power,  authority,  and  commission 
"  to  order  \ordain\  and  consecrate  others  in  the  same 
room,  order,  and  office,  whereunto  they  be  called  and  ad- 
mitted themselves."  This  is  their  solemn  view  of  the 
"  divine  institution  of  bishops  and  presbyters,''^  What  then 
can  the  reader  think  of  those  divines  of  this  Church  who 
deny  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are,  by  divine  right,  ac- 

t  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Collection  of  Records,  B.  3, 
Add.  No.  5. 


4 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        149 

cording  to  the  true  Church  of  England,  one  and  the  same 
office ;  and  deny  also  that  ordination  by  presbyters  is,  by 
divine  institution^  equal  to  ordination  by  bishops  ?  If  any 
should  pretend  that  the  doctrine  of  this  Church  has  been 
altered  since  the  time  above  referred  to,  let  him  show  when 
and  where;  let  him  produce  the  documents  published  by 
the  Church,  met  in  solemn  convocation  rescinding  or  repeal- 
ing the  above,  and  as  plainly  declaring  the  order  of  bish- 
ops to  be  by  divine  institution  superior  to,  and  incompatible 
with,  the  office  of  presbyters  as  such  ;  and  that  such  bishops 
ALONE  have  "power,  authority,  and  commission,  under 
Christ,  to  order  and  consecrate  others  in  the  same  room^ 
order,  and  stead,  whereunto  they  be  called  and  admitted 
themselves."  Nothing  short  of  this  will  avail.  They 
know  they  cannot  do  it. 

The  date  of  the  above  document  Burnet  shows  to  be 
1537  or  1538.  In  Burnet's  account  of  the  drawing  up  of 
a  "  Declaration  of  the  Christian  Doctrine  for  Necessary 
Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man,"  he  remarks,  that  the  convo- 
cation books  are  lost ;  but  that  Fuller,  his  only  guide, 
"  assures  the  world  that  he  copies  out  of  the  records  with 
his  own  hand  what  he  published."  Now  Fuller  calls  the 
assembly  of  bishops,  &c.,  that  drew  up  this  declaration  a 
convocation.  Burnet  has  a  little  doubt  of  the  correctness 
of  this  statement.  But  all  he  says  is  easily  reconcilable 
with  it.  It  would  be  out  of  all  rule  to  allow  trifles  to  set 
aside  the  statement  made  by  a  grave  divine,  declaring  to 
the  world  that  "  he  copies  out  of  the  records  with  his  own 
hand."  The  assembly,  then,  was  a  convocation.  This 
point  is  thus  decided  by  Dr.  Laurence  :  "  Before  its  pub- 
lication it  was  approved  by  the  convocation  then  sitting,  in 
which  it  was  examined  in  parts,  as  appears  evident  from 
the  Minutes  of  that  assembly,  in  Wilkins's  Concilia  Mag- 
nas  Britanniae,  vol.  iii,  p.  868."*  The  work  thus  drawn  up, 
examined,  and  approved  by  the  convocation,  "  The  Ne- 
cessary Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man,"  was  published  by 
royal  authority,  and  hence  also  usually  called  the  King's 
Book.  No  determinations  in  the  Church  of  England  can 
have  higher  authority.  In  the  chapter  of  orders,  they 
"  expressly  resolve  that  priests  and  bishops,  by  God^s  law, 
are  o?ie  and  the  same ;  and  that  the  power  of  ordination 
*  Dr.  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  19  L 


150        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  excommunication  belongs  equally  to  both."*  What 
can  be  more  decisive  !  Comment  would  darken  this  clear 
statement ;  and  to  multiply  words  would  be  to  dilute  and 
weaken  its  force. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  their  decisions  indi- 
vidually. 

Cranmer,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. — "  The  hish- 
ops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  no  two  things; 
but  BOTH  ONE  OFFICE  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion." 

Bishop  of  London. — "  I  think  the  bishops  were  first ; 
and  yet  I  think  it  is  not  of  importance,  whether  the  priest 
then  MADE  the  bishop,  or  the  bishop  \he  priest ;  considering 
after  the  sentence  of  Jerome,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
church  there  was  none  (or  if  it  were,  very  small)  differ- 
ence between  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  especially  touching 
the  signification." 

Dr.  Robertson. — "  I  do  not  think  it  absurd  that  a 
priest  should  consecrate  a  bishop,  if  a  bishop  cannot  be 
had." 

Dr.  Cox. — "Although  by  Scripture,  (as  St.  Hierome 
saith,)  priests  and  bishops  be  one,  and  therefore  the  one 
not  before  the  other ;  yet  bishops,  as  they  be  now,  were 
after  priests  ;  and  therefore  made  of  (by)  priests." 

Dr.  Redmayne. — "  They  all  be  of  like  beginning,  and 
at  the  beginning  were  both  one,  as  St.  Hierome  and  other 
old  authors  show  by  the  Scriptures,  wherefore  one  made 
another  indifferently.''''  Burnet  says  that  Dr.  Redmayne 
"was  esteemed  the  7nost  learned  and  judicious  divine  of  that 
time."  When  the  convocation  "  were  about  to  state  the 
true  notion  of  faith,  Cranmer  commanded  Dr.  Redmayne, 
who  was  esteemed  the  most  learned  and  judicious  divine 
of  that  time,  to  write  a  short  treatise  on  these  heads  ; 
which  he  did  with  that  solidity  and  clearness,  that  it  will 

*  Calamy's  Defence  of  Nonconformity,  vol.  i,  p.  91,  ed.  1703.  This 
is  the  substance  of  that  chapter,  given  in  the  words  of  Calamy.  Its 
words  in  the  Necessary  Erudition  are  such  as  the  following  :  "  Of  two 
orders  only,  that  is  to  say,  priests  and  deacons,  Scripture  maketh  ex- 
press mention."  Here  presbyters  and  bishops  are  both  one  order. 
^^  All  lawful  -powers  and  authorities  of  one  bishop  over  another  were  to 
be  given  to  them  by  the  consent  or  ordinance,  and  positive  laws  of  men 
only,  and  not  by  any  ordinance  of  God  in  Holy  Scripture."  Then 
speaking  of  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  general  as  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, they  say  that  "  Christ  set  them  all  indifferently ^  and  in  like 
power,  dignity,  and  authority^ 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       151 

suflSciently  justify  any  advantageous  character  that  can  be 
given  of  the  author." 

Here  we  find  not  only  the  most  express  statements  that 
the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  believed  "  bishops 
and  presbyters  to  be  one  and  the  same  ofice"  but  that 
PRESBYTERS  MADE,  that  is,  ORDAINED  BISHOPS,  and  bishops 
presbyters,  indifferently. 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  see  through  another 
common  mistake.  The  Book  for  Ordaining  Priests  and 
bishops  is  appealed  to  in  proof  that  the  Church  of  England 
maintains  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  not,  by  divine 
institution,  one  and  the  same  off.ce.  Now  the  principal 
bishops  and  divines  who  composed  the  Book  of  Ordination 
in  King  Edward's  time,  were  the  same  as  those  whose 
views  on  the  divine  institution  of  bishops  and  priests  have 
been  given  above,  and  whose  decisions  in  solemn  convo- 
cation, ratified  by  royal  authority,  we  have  just  heard. 
This  book,  the  Book  of  Orders,  was  put  forth  in  the  time 
of  King  Edward  VI.  Cranmer,  and  most  of  the  other 
compilers,  outlived  him.  The  interpretation,  therefore,  of 
this  book,  as  then  put  forth,  which  would  go  to  maintain 
episcopacy  as  by  di^dne  right  to  have  powers  and  authority 
incompatible  with  priests  or  presbyters,  as  such,  would  be 
to  assert  that  these  eminent  men  determined  one  thing  in 
solemn  convocation,  and  then  immediately  put  forth  a  book 
contradicting  their  former  determination,  without  ever 
giving  any  intimation  of  such  a  change  in  their  views  I 

Two  parts  of  the  Book  of  Ordination  are  appealed  to  by 
these  writers  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  the  superiority 
of  episcopacy  by  divine  right :  the  part  of  the  office  for  or- 
daining a  bishop,  as  distinct  from  that  part  of  the  office  for 
ordaining  a  presbyter ;  and  the  preface  to  the  book  itself. 

First,  then,  as  to  the  part  of  the  office  for  ordaining  or 
consecrating  a  bishop :  let  the  reader  keep  in  mind,  that 
the  question  is  not  whether  the  English  reformers  made  a 
class  of  ministers  called  archbishops  and  bishops,  distinct 
from  priests  or  presbyters  ;  no  one  denies  this ;  but  the 
question  is,  did  they  do  this  on  the  principle  of  the  divine 
right  of  the  order  of  bishops,  as  distinct  from,  superior  to, 
and  incompatible  with  presbyters  as  presbyters  ;  or  did 
they  do  it  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  for  the  honour 
of  the  bishops  and  the  church  ;  for  order,  peace,  unity,  and 


152        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

good  government  ?  They  have  solemnly  answered  for  them- 
selves, that  "  by  divine  institution,"  bishops  and  pres- 
byters were  one  and  the  sa7ne  office  ;  therefore  they  meant 
the  distinction  above  referred  to  merely  as  an  ecclesiastical 
arrangement  according  to  the  views  of  the  Christian  fathers, 
for  the  purposes  just  now  specified.  This  is  further  evident 
from  a  fact  of  which  many  readers  are  not  aware  :  it  is  this, 
that  in  the  original  hook,  and  up  to  the  time  of  Charles  XL, 
there  was  no  difference  in  the  words  of  ordaining  a 
bishop,  to  DISTINGUISH  his  office  from  that  of  a  presbyter. 
Bishop  Burnet  grants  "  there  was  then  no  express  mention 
made  in  the  words  of  ordaining  them,  that  it  was  for  the 
one  or  the  other  office."  It  cannot  be  denied  ;  the  old 
form  is  standing  evidence  of  the  fact.  In  the  time  of  King 
Charles  II.,  about  1662,  the  bishops  who  had  the  care  of 
revising  the  ordination  service,  after  these  words,  "Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost," — added,  with  regard  to  priests, — "  for 
the  OFFICE  and  work  of  a  priest,  now  committed  unto 
thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands  :" — and,  with  respect  to 
the  bishop,  "  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  bishop  in  the 
Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  our  hands,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  in  the  interrogatories 
put  to  the  bishop  elect,  there  is  one  added,  not  anciently 
used,  namely,  this  :  "  Will  you  be  faithful  in  ordaining, 
sending,  or  laying  hands  upon  others  ?"  with  this  answer — 
"  I  will  so  be  by  the  help  of  God."  Moreover  those  pas- 
sages of  the  New  Testament  that  speak  so  expressly  on  the 
duties  of  a  Scriptural  bishop,  were  made  part  of  the  office 
of  ordaining  a  priest  or  presbyter,  and  continued  so  until 
1662.  The  form  of  ordaining  a  presbyter  commenced 
with  the  epistle,  as  it  is  termed,  out  of  Acts  xx,  17-35  :  or, 
in  its  place,  1  Tim.  iii,  entire.  The  reader  will  do  well  to 
read  the  places.  Then  for  the  gospel, — the  commission 
given  by  our  Lord  to  his  ministers,  as  in  Matt,  xxviii,  18, 
and  other  passages  out  of  John,  chapter  x,  and  xx.  Now 
these  passages  thus  applied  to  presbyters,  in  the  solemn  act 
of  setting  them  apart  to  their  office,  clearly  show  that  the 
Book  of  Orders,  up  to  1662,  bore  solemn  testimony  to  their 
being,  by  divine  right.  Scriptural  bishops  ;  and  the  very 
COMMISSION  (Matt,  xxviii,  18)  about  which  high  Churchmen 
make  such  a  parade  as  belonging  solely  to  bishops  as  a 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        153 

distinct  order,  superior  to,  and  incompatible  %vitli  presby- 
ters simply  as  such — this  very  commissian  is,  in  this  solemn 
dct,  given  by  the  reformers  to  presbyters  alone,  and  is 
never  applied  to  bishops  as  such,  in  any  part  of  their  ordi- 
nation. In  the  revision  of  1662  these  scriptures  were 
omitted  in  the  form  of  ordaining  a  presbyter,  and  were  ge- 
nerally transferred  to  the  form  of  consecrating  a  bishop. 
There  was,  indeed,  in  the  old  form  of  the  consecration  of  a 
bishop,  ver}^  little  Scripture  employed.  The  reformers,  it  is 
clear,  looked  upon  it  only  as  a  decent  ceremony,  but  as 
having  no  Scriptural  authority,  nor  conferring  any  addition- 
al divine  authority.*  The  changes  in  1662  maybe  thought 
to  show  the  wishes  of  some  of  the  parties  concerned  ;  but 
still  they  do  not  alter  elxij  principle  in  the  old  form.  All  the 
alterations  consist  in  detail  and  arrangement. 

The  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  also,  appointed 
presbyters  to  perform  the  imposition  of  hands  in  ordaining 
presbyters,  along  with  bishops.  So  directs  the  Book  of 
Ordaining  Priests,  &c.  :  "  When  this  prayer  is  done,  the 
bishop,  WITH  THE  PRIESTS  present,  shall  lay  their  hands 
severally  upon  the  head  of  every  one  that  receiveth  the  order 
of  priesthood ;  the  receivers  humbly  kneeling  upon  their 
knees,  and  the  bishop  saying,  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c. 
As  the  reformers  believed  that  bishops  and  presbj'ters 
were,  by  the  Scripture,  one  and  the  same  office,  this  ordi- 
nation was,  in  their  view,  the  only  real  Scriptural  ordina- 
tion constituting  any  person  a  minister  of  God's  word. 
Presbyters  then  are  actually  ordainers  in  all  the  Scriptural 
ordinations  that  ever  have  taken  place  in  the  Church  of 
England.  Several  acts  of  parliament  have  ratified  the  or- 
dination of  such  as  were  ordained  by  presbyters  only. 
Thus  in  the  13th  of  Elizabeth,  cap.  12— "An  act  for  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  to  be  of  sound  reUgion.  That 
the  churches  of  the  queen's  majesty's  dominions  may  be 
served  with  pastors  of  sound  religion,  Be  it  enacted,  that 
every  person  under  the  degree  of  bishop,  which  doth  or 
shall  pretend  to  be  a  priest,  or  minister  of  God's  holy  word 
and  sacrament,  by  reason  of  any  other  form  of  institution, 
consecration  or  ordering,  [ordaining,^  than  the  form  set 
forth  by  parliament,  shall  declare  his  assent  and  subscribe 
the  articles,"  and  on  these  conditions  he  shall  retain  orders 

*  Vide  Burnet's  Records,  book  3,  No.  21,  quest.  10-14. 
5* 


154        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  benefice.  So  in  the  12tli  Caroli,  cap.  17 — "Beit 
enacted,  tliat  any  ecclesiastical  person  or  minister,  being 
ordained  by  any  ecclesiastical  persons,  &c.,  shall  be,  and 
is  hereby  declared,  adjudged,  and  enacted  to  have  been,  be 
and  continue  the  real  and  lawful  incumbent,  parson,  rector, 
vicar  and  possessor  of  the  said  ecclesiastical  benefice, 
livings  and  promotions  respectively  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses whatever."  By  these  acts,  hundreds  of  ministers  who 
had  no  more  than  preshyterian  ordination,  or  ordination  by 
presbyters  alone,  without  the  presence  of  any  bishop,  were 
confirmed  in  their  livings  as  true  ministers  in  the  Church  of 
England.  See  a  license  also  to  this  effect  by  Archbishop 
Grindal,  "  approving  and  ratifying  the  form  of  ordination," 
by  a  Scotch,  presbytery ,  of  Mr.  Morrison,  a  Scots  divine  ; 
and  giving  hira  commission  "  throughout  the  whole  diocess 
of  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine  offices,  to  minister  sac- 
raments," &c.*  "  No  bishop  in  Scotland,  during  my  stay 
in  that  kingdom,"  saith  Burnet,  bishop  of  Sarum,  "  ever  did 
so  much  as  desire  any  of  the  Presbyterians  to  be  reordain- 
ed."j  Bishop  Cosin,  speaking  of  the  presbyterian  ordina- 
tion of  the  French  churches,  says,  "If  at  anytime  a  minister 
so  ordained  in  these  French  churches  came  to  incorporate 
himself  in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge,  or  cure  of 
souls  among  us,  in  the  Church  of  England,  (as  I  have 
known  some  of  them  to  have  so  done  of  late,  and  can  in- 
stance in  many  other  before  my  time,)  our  bishops  did  not 
reordain  him  before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge  ;  as 
they  must  have  done,  if  his  former  ordination  in  France 
had  been  void.  Nor  did  our  laics  require  more  of  him  than 
to  declare  his  public  consent  to  the  religion  received  among 
us,  and  to  subscribe  the  articles  established."  See  a 
letter  from  Dr.  John  Cosin,  afterward  bishop  of  Durham, 
to  Mr.  Cordel,  who  scrupled  to  communicate  with  the 
French  Protestants  upon  some  of  the  modern  pretences, 
published  by  Dr.  Isaac  Basire,  archdeacon  of  Northum- 
berland, in  his  account  of  Bishop  Cosin,  annexed  to  his 
funeral  sermon,  and  given  as  an  appendix  to  "  the  judgment 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  case  of  lay  baptism."!    ^^ 

*  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i. 

t  Bishop  of  Sarum's  Vindication,  printed  London,  1696,  pp.  84,  85, 
as  quoted  by  Owen  in  his  "  Ordination  by  Presbyters,"  Introd. 
t  Second  edit.  London,  1712. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        155 

is  a  curious  fact,  that  anciently  incumbents,  rectors,  &c., 
were  styled  prelates.*  As  tlie  constitution  of  this 
Church  has  established  an  order  of  men  as  bishops  or  su- 
perintendents, requiring  all  important  matters  to  be  under 
their  superintendency,  and  that  no  ordinations  especially 
should  be  performed  without  them,  it  is  right  enough  to 
refuse  any  one  regularly  to  minister  in  that  Church,  who 
positively  and  wilfully  resists  this  arrangement.  If  this  be 
done  without  claiming  divine  right  for  this  superintendency, 
and  without  attempting  to  unchurch  other  churches  because 
they  do  not  adopt  it,  the  writer  would  not  say  one  word 
against  it.  Every  church  has  a  right  to  use  its  own  judg- 
ment in  such  matters. 

Now  for  the  second  point,  viz.,  the  preface  to  the  Book 
of  Ordination. 

The  words  in  the  preface — "  It  is  evident  unto  all  men, 
diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that 
from  the  apostles'  time,  there  hath  been  these  orders  of 
ministers  in  the  Christian  church ;  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons" — are  the  same  as  they  were  in  King  Edward's 
ordinal,  and  therefore  have  the  same  interpretation;  for 
there  is  nothing  declared  to  the  contrary  in  the  revision 
of  1662.  The  question  here,  then,  can  be  only  as  to  the 
meaning  which  the  reformers  attached  to  the  term  order. 
Now  we  have  seen  that  the  fathers  used  it  for  a  distinc- 
tion of  persons  in  the  church,  possessing  equal  powers,  by 
divine  right,  as  gospel  ministers.  The  reformers  were 
familiar  with  the  writings  of  the  fathers.  The  proper  in- 
terpretation of  their  language,  then,  is,  that  they  mean, 
that  from  the  apostles'  times  such  disti?ictions  as  bishops, 
presbyters,  and  deacons  had  existed ;  not  that  the  office 
or  duties  of  a  bishop  were  by  divine  institution  incompatible 
with  the  office  of  a  presbyter  as  a  presbyter ;  for  they  ex- 
pressly affirmed  the  contrary.  The  bishop  of  London,  as 
above  quoted,  along  with  Cranmer,  intimates  that  there 
might  be  "  some  small  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a 
priest  in  the  beginning  of  the  church."  That  some  dis- 
tinction did  exist  even  in  the  apostles'  time,  we  do  not 

*  Johnson's  Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  vol.  i,  pp.  183,  212,  ed.  4th. 
Bishop  Burnet,  in  the  preface  to  his  Vindication  of  the  Ordinations  of 
the  Church  of  England,  shows  that  several  abbots,  though  no  more  than 
presbyters,  not  only  wore  the  mitre,  but  ordained  even  bishops. 


156        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

deny.  We  only  deny  that  the  powers  and  authority  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  were  incompatible  with  each  other 
as  such,  by  divine  right.  There  is  considerable  proof,  as 
was  shown  in  section  iii,  that  presbyters  were  superior 
in  honour  and  duties  to  bishops,  perhaps  as  much  so  as 
rectors  are  to  curates ;  yet  not  so  as  to  constitute  authority 
and  powers  incompatible  with  the  office  of  bishops.  The 
preface,  then,  contains  no  proof  of  bishops,  by  divine  right, 
as  an  order  such  as  high  Churchmen  pretend. 

Additional  evidence  will  arise  both  to  the  above  inter- 
pretation of  the  Book  of  Orders,  and  to  the  general  ques- 
tion, by  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Jewel.*  Jewel  was 
bishop  in  Elizabeth's  time,  considerably  after  the  publish- 
ing of  the  Book  of  Ordering  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons. 
He  stands  in  the  very  first  class  of  reformers  for  talent, 
piety,  and  learning ;  and  for  the  ability  with  which  he  de- 
fended the  Church  of  England  against  the  Papists.  "  His 
Apology,"  says  Dr.  Randolph,  "  has  had  the  sanction  of 
public  authority,  and  may  therefore  be  relied  on  as  con- 
taining the  final  and  decided  opinion  of  our  reformers, 
approved  in  the  general  by  the  church  at  large."!  The 
Apology  was  published  in  1562.  Harding,  a  Jesuit,  pub- 
lished a  Confutation  of  it.  Jewel  replied  in  a  Defence 
of  his  Apology.  This  Defence,  imbodying  the  Apology 
also,  was  in  such  universal  and  high  repute,  that  it  was 
placed  in  the  parish  churches  to  be  read  by  all,  as  giving 
the  best  view  of  all  the  matters  therein  contained,  corro- 
borated by  the  authorities  of  Scripture  and  the  fathers  of 
the  first  six  centuries.  Many  have  probably  seen  this 
huge  folio,  fastened  with  chains  to  a  reading-desk,  in  the 
church.  The  edition  from  which  I  quote  has  a  large 
strong  iron  plate  at  the  bottom,  with  a  hole  through  it, 
where  the  chain  had  been  formerly  fastened.  In  his 
Apology,  he  says,  "  That  the  catholic  church  is  the  king- 
dom, the  body,  and  spouse  of  Christ;  that  Christ  is  the 

*  Richard  Hurrel  Froude,  a  first-rate  Oxford  Tract-man,  speaking 
of  this  illustrious  writer,  says,  "  Jewel  was  what  you,  [the  Oxford 
Tract-men,]  in  these  days,  call  an  irreverent  Dissenter.  His  Defence 
of  his  Apology  disgusted  me  more  than  almost  any  work  I  ever  read. 
He  laughs  at  the  apostolical  succession,  both  in  principle  and  as  a  fact; 
and  says  that  the  only  succession  worth  having  is  the  succession  of 
DOCTRINE." — Fronde's  Remains. 

t  Preface  to  Dr.  Randolph's  "  Enchiridion  Theologicum." 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        157 

only  Prince  of  this  kingdom ;  that  there  are  in  the  church 
divers  orders  of  ministers ;  that  there  are  some  who  are 
deacons,  others  who  are  presbyters,  and  others  who  are 
bishops,  to  whom  the  instruction  of  the  people,  and  the 
care  and  management  of  religion,  are  committed."  Part  ii, 
sec.  6.  Now  here  is  the  distinction  of  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  called  "  divers  orders.""^  Does  this  great 
writer,  and  champion  of  the  Church  of  England,  then, 
mean  that  bishops  are  an  order,  by  divine  right,  with 
powers  and  authority  incompatible  with  presbyters,  as 
such  ?  Let  him  explain  himself  in  his  Defence.  Harding, 
it  seems,  for  the  sake  of  cavilling,  had  introduced  the 
question  of  the  difference  between  priests  and  bishops,  or 
"  the  distinction  of  a  bishop  and  a  priest,"  as  he  himself 
expresses  it.  Bishop  Jewel  says,  "  Here,  to  weigh  down 
the  AUTHORITY  of  God's  HOLY  WORD,  Mr.  Harding  hath 
brought  in  a  heap  of  ordinary  stale  quarrels  of  the  differ- 
ence between  priests  and  bishops  ;  of  Lent ;  of  the  com- 
munion book ;  of  the  homilies  ;  of  the  order  of  service ; 
and  of  the  perpetual  virginity  of  our  Ladie.  His  whole 
DRIFT  herein  is  to  bear  us  in  hand,  that  there  is  very  little 
or  NO  AUTHORITY  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  the  whole 
credit  and  certainty  of  our  faith  resteth  only  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  But  what  means  Mr.  Harding  here  to 
come  in  with  the  difference  between  priests  and  bishops  ? 
Thinketh  he  that*  priests  and  bishops  hold  only  by  tra- 
dition 1  Or  is  it  so  horrible  a  heresy  as  he  maketh  it,  to 
say  that  hy  the  Scriptures  of  God,  a  bishop  and  d^.  priest  are 
ALL  ONE  1  Or  knoweth  he  how  far,  and  unto  whom  he 
reacheth  the  name  of  heretic  ?  Verily  Chrysostom  saith, 
'  Between  a  bishop  and  a  priest  in  a  manner  there  is  no 
difference.''  St.  Hierome  saith,  somewhat  in  rougher  sort, 
'  I  hear  say  there  is  one  become  so  peevish,  that  he  setteth 
deacons  before  priests,  that  is  to  say,  before  bishops: 
whereas  the  apostle  plainly  teaches  us,  that  priests  and 

*  Jewel  does  not  here  mean  the  distinction  only,  but  the  things 
themselves  also  :  for  his  (Harding's)  whole  drift,  and  the  whole  drift 
of  Popery,  is,  "to  bear  us  in  hand  that  there  is  very  little  or  no 
authority  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  the  whole  credit  and  certainty  of 
our  faith  resteth  only  in  the  Church  of  Rome. ^^ — A  remark  which  no 
Protestant  should  ever  forget.  To  accomplish  this,  some  of  their 
greatest  men  have  exerted  all  their  learning  and  ingenuity. 


158        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

bishops  be  all  one,'  Augustine  saith,  'What  is  a  bishop 
but  the  first  priest, — that  is,  the  highest  priest  V  So  saith 
St,  Ambrose,  '  There  is  but  one  consecration  of  priests  and 
bishops  :  for  both  of  them  are  priests,  but  the  bishop  is  the 
first.^  All  these,  and  other  more  holy  fathers,  together 
WITH  St,  Paul  the  apostle,  for  thus  saying,  by  Mr, 
Harding's  advice,  must  be  holden  for  heretics."*  He  thus 
quotes  Augustine  in  another  place  :  "  Augustine  saith  '  the 
office  of  a  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  a  priest,'  {not  by 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but)  after  the  names  of  honour 
which  the  custom  of  the  church  hath  now  obtained," 
p.  100.  The  words  ^^  not  by  authority  of  Scripture, ^^  are 
Jewel's  own  words,  put  in  to  explain  Augustine's  sense. 
Jewel,  we  see,  perfectly  agrees  with  Cranmer,  and  the 
rest  of  the  bishops  and  divines  who  formed  the  Constitu- 
tion, Government,  and  Book  of  Ordination,  of  the  Church 
of  England.  He  believes  "  bishops  and  presbyters,  by 
the  Scriptures  of  God,  are  all  one  ;"  that,  as  Augustine 
saith,  "  the  office  of  a  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  a  priest, 
(not  by  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but)  after  the  names 
of  honour  which  the  custom  of  the  church  hath  obtained." 
His  mention,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Apology,  of  '•'■  divers 
orders,  deacons,  presbyters,  and  bishops,"  does  not  imply 
that  the  order  of  bishops  has,  by  "  authority  of  Scripture," 
prerogatives  incompatible  with  presbyters,  but  that,  while 
by  the  Scriptures,  as  to  rights  and  authority,  they  are  one, 
yet  they  are  there  distinct  names,  and  that  the  bishop  is 
the  first  priest  or  presbyter,  and  above  the  other  presbyters 
by  the  names  of  honour  which  the  cusTo:\r  of  the  church 
hath  obtained.  So  meant  the  reformers,  and  so  means  the 
ordination  service. 

Dr.  Whitaker,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
was  a  profoundly  learned  divine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  a  mighty  champion  of  the  Reformation  against  Popery, 
He  says,  "  I  confess  that  there  was  originally  no  difference 
between  a  presbyter  and  a  bishop,  Luther,  and  the  other 
heroes  of  the  Reformation,  were  presbyters,  even  accord- 
ing to  the  ordination  of  the  Romish  Church ;  and,  there- 
fore, they  were,  jure  divino,  bishops.  Consequently,  what- 
ever belongs  to  bishops,  belongs  also,  jure  divino,  to  them- 
selves. As  for  bishops  being  afterward  placed  over  pres- 
*  Page  202,  fol.  ed.,  1609. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        159 

byters,  that  was  a  human  arrangement  for  the  removal  of 
schisms,  as  the  histories  of  the  times  testify."* 

Hooker  appears  to  maintain  the  very  same  view  in  his 
fifth  book  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  a  work  of  the  very 
highest  authority  with  the  Church  of  England,  and  for  its 
reasoning,  its  language,  and  its  learning,  the  admiration 
of  all.  The  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  books  are  of  no 
AUTHORITY  ;  they  were  not  published  by  hhnself,  and  are 
acknowledged  to  have  been  altered  much  by  other  hands  ; 
so  that  no  confidence  whatever  can  be  placed  in  them  as 
Hooker's.  In  the  fifth  book,  sec.  78,  he  says,  "  Touching 
the  ministry  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  whole  body 
of  the  church  being  divided  into  laity  and  clergy,  the 
clergy  are  either  preshyters  or  deacons.''^  Now  where 
are  bishops  ?  nowhere,  except  they  be  one  and  the  same 
as  presbyters.  Nothing  can  be  plainer.  "  For  oi preshy- 
ters, some  vjere  greater,  some  less  in  power,  and  that  by  our 
Saviour's  own  appointment ;  the  greater,  they  which  re- 
ceived fulness  of  spiritual  power,  and  the  less,  they  to 
whom  less  was  granted."  Let  the  reader  carefully  attend, 
and  he  will  see  that  by  the  greater  presbyters  he  means 
the  first  apostles  endowed  with  power  of  miracles,  &c., 
and  by  the  less  or  inferior  presbyters,  he  means  all  other 
ordinary  Christian  ministers,  without  distinction.  He  goes 
on :  "  The  apostles'  peculiar  charge  was  to  publish  the 
gospel  of  Christ  unto  all  nations,  and  to  deliver  them  his 
ordinances  received  by  i?nmediate  revelation.  Which  pre- 
eminence excepted,  to  all  other  offices  and  duties  incident 
to  their"  (that  is,  the  apostles')  "  order,  it  was  in  them  to 
ordaine  and  consecrate  w^homsoever  they  thought  meet, 
even  as  our  Saviour  did  himself  assign  seventy  others  of 
his  own  disciples  inferior  presbyters,  whose  commission  to 
preach  and  baptize  was  the  same  which  the  apostles  had." 
Here,  then,  all  are  inferior  presbyters,  except  the  twelve 
apostles,  who  received  greater  fulness  of  spiritual  power, 
and  delivered  ordinances  by  immediate  revelation;  and, 
which  pre-eminence  excepted,  to  all  other  offices  and 
duties  incident  to  the  order  of  the  twelve  apostles,  all 
the  inferior  presbyters  were  ordained  and  consecrated  by 
the  apostles.  "  To  these  two  degrees'^  (as  above  men- 
tioned) "  appointed  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Christ,  his 
*  Whitakeri  0pp.,  vol.  i,  pp.  509  et  510,  fol,  Genev.,  1610. 


160        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

apostles  soon  after  annexed  deacons.''^ — "  It  appeareth, 
therefore,  how  long  these  three  degrees  of  ecclesiastical 
order  have  continued  in  the  church  of  Christ,"  (1.)  "the 
highest  and  largest,  that  which  the  apostles,^''  (2.)  "the 
next,  that  which  the  presbyters,^''  (3.)  "  the  lowest,  that 
which  deacons  had." — "  Evangelists  were  presbyters,  of 
principal  sufficiency." — "  Pastors,  what  other  were  they 
than  presbyters  also  ?" — "  I  beseech  them,  therefore,  which 
have  hitherto  troubled  the  church  with  questions  about 
degrees  and  offices  of  ecclesiastical  calling,  because  they 
principally  ground  themselves  upon  two  places,  (1  Cor.  ii, 
28;  Ephes.  iv,  7-12,)  that  all  partiality  laid' aside,  they 
would  sincerely  weigh  and  examine  whether  they  have 
not  misinterpreted  both  places,  and  all  by  surmising  in- 
compatible offices  where  nothing  is  meant  but  sundry' 
graces,  gifts,  and  abilities  which  Christ  bestowed." — "  It 
clearly  appeareth,  that  churches  apostolike  did  know  but 
three  degrees  in  the  power  of  ecclesiastical  order,  at  the 
first,  (1.)  'Apostles,'  (2.)  '  Preshjters,'  and  (3.)  'Dea- 
cons;' AFTERWARD,  instead  of  apostles,  bishops,  concern- 
ing whose  order  we  are  to  speak  in  the  seventh  book." 
This  he  never  published.  But  he  has  clearly  given  his 
judgment  that  presbyters  and  bishops,  in  "  apostolic 
churches,'''  were  one  and  the  same  order  and  office.  All 
the  ordinary  powers  and  offices  of  apostles,  he  affirms,  be- 
long to  all  gospel  ministers,  whom  he  calls,  compared 
with  the  twelve  apostles,  "  inferior  presbyters."  The  powers 
of  ordination  were  among  those  powers,  and  therefore  be- 
long equally  to  them  all,  by  divine  right,  whether  bishops 
or  presbyters.  They  were  all  one  and  the  same  in 
"apostolike  churches."  Bishops,  as  superintendents 
over  other  ministers,  were  not,  according  to  Hooker,  in 
the  apostolike  churches  ;  they  arose  afterward. 

Hooker's  design  was  not  to  establish  the  divi>e  right 
of  episcopacy,  but  to  oppose  the  exclusive  claim  for  the  di- 
vine right  of  presbyterianism ;  and  to  show  that  the  cere- 
monies and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England  were 
lawful,  that  is,  not  antiscriptural,  not  sinful.  Accordingly 
we  find  him,  in  the  third  book  of  his  celebrated  work, 
actually  and  ably  reasoning  against  the  exclusive  divine 
right  of  any  special  form  of  church  government :  "  We 
must  note,"  says  he,  "  that  he  which  affirmeth  speech  to 


ON  APOSTOLIC  AX  SUCCESSION.  161 

be  necessary  among  all  men  throughout  the  world,  doth 
not  thereby  import  that  all  men  must  necessarily  speak 
one  kind  of  language  :  even  so  the  necessity  of  polity  and 
regiment  in  all  churches  may  be  held,  without  holding 
any  one  certain  form  to  be  necessary  in  them  all." — "  The 
general  principles  [of  Scripture]  are  such  as  do  not  parti- 
cularly prescribe  any  one,  but  sundry  may  equally  be  con- 
sonant unto  the  general  axiomes  of  the  Scripture." — •"  We 
reckon  matters  of  government  in  the  number  of  things 
accessary,  not  things  necessary." — "  But  as  for  those  things 
that  are  accessary,  those  things  that  so  belong  to  the  way 
of  salvation,  as  to  alter  them,  is  no  otherwise  to  change 
that  way,  than  a  path  is  changed  by  altering  only  the  up- 
permost face  thereof,  which  be  it  laid  with  gravel,  or  set 
with  grass,  or  paved  with  stones,  remaineth  still  the  same 
path ;  in  such  things  because  descretion  may  teach  the 
church  what  is  convenient,  we  hold  not  the  church  further 
tyed  herein  unto  Scripture,  than  that  against  Scripture 
nothing  be  admitted  in  the  church,  lest  that  path  which 
ought  always  to  be  kept  even,  do  thereby  become  to  be 
overgrown  with  brambles  and  thorns." — "  I  therefore  con- 
clude, that  neither  God's  being  author  of  laws  for  govern- 
ment of  his  church,  nor  his  committing  them  unto  Scripture, 
is  reason  sufficient,  wherefore  all  churches  should  for  ever 
be  bound  to  keep  them  without  change."  This  surely  is 
sufficient  to  destroy  for  ever  the  claims  of  high  Churchmen 
to  the  authority  of  Hooker  in  favour  of  their  exclusive  sys- 
tem. Hooker  did  not  deny  that  presbyterianism  was  a 
valid  form  of  church  government,  but  he  denied  its  exclusive 
validity  ;  and  maintamed  that  episcopacy,  when  adopted 
by  the  church,  was  equally  valid.  So  also  the  36th  Arti- 
cle : — "  The  Book  of  Consecration  of  Archbishops,  &c., 
doth  contain  all  things  necessary  to  such  consecration  and 
ordering ;  neither  hath  it  any  tiling,  that  of  itself  is  super- 
stitious and  uxGODLY."  Many  of  the  Puritans  and  rigid 
Presbyterians  denied  this  ;  and  were  utterly  opposed  to  an 
order  of  bishops  at  all,  even  as  a  human  arrangement,  as 
perpetual  governors  of  ministers  as  well  as  oi  people.  This 
arose  from  what  they  had  seen  of  it  in  Popery,  and  in  some 
who  abused  it  in  their  day.  Though  Popery  did  not 
maintain  the  divine  right  of  bishops,  yet  the  pope  gave  them 
rights,  power,  and  jurisdiction ;  and  the  bishops,  in  return, 


162       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

took  a  solemn  oath  to  be  faithful  to  the  pope  ;  they 
JOINED  THEIR  AUTHORITY  to  Twet  the  chaius  of  pricstlt/ 
tyranny  and  bondage  upon  the  church.  The  name  of 
bishop,  therefore,  as  weil  as  that  of  pope,  had  generally 
become  hateful  at  the  Reformation  and  afterward. 

As  the  documentary  evidence  in  this  section  has  been 
considered  highly  valuable,  the  reader  probably  will  not 
regret  the  insertion  of  an  extract  from  Dr.  Field's  work 
"  Of  the  Church."  Dr.  Field  was  a  learned  divine  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
of  James  I.  Mr.  Palmer  has  pronounced  his  Avork  to  be 
profoundly  learned.  It  is  highly  valued  ;  and  is  both  very 
scarce  and  very  dear,  so  that  but  few  readers  can  have 
access  to  it.  This  learned  defender  of  the  Church  of 
England  thus  speaks  on  the  subject  of  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  : — "  But  they  will  say,  whatsoever 
may  be  thought  of  these  places  wherein  bishops  did 
ordain,  yet  in  many  other  none  but  presbyters  did  impose 
hands  ;  all  which  ordinations  are  clearly  void :  and  so,  by 
consequence,  many  of  the  pretended  reformed  churches, 
as  namely  those  of  France,  and  others,  have  no  ministry 
at  all.  The  next  thing,  therefore,  to  be  examined  is, 
whether  the  power  of  ordination  be  so  essentially  annexed 
to  the  order  of  bishops,  that  none  but  bishops  may  in  any 
case  ordain.  For  the  clearing  whereof  we  must  observe, 
that  the  whole  ecclesiastical  power  is  aptly  divided  into 
the  power  of  order,  and  jurisdiction.  Ordo  est  rerum  pari- 
um  dispariumque  unicuique  sua  loca  trihuens  congrua  dispo- 
sitio  :  that  is, — Order  is  an  apt  disposing  of  things,  whereof 
some  are  greater  and  some  lesser,  some  better  and  some 
meaner,  sorting  them  accordingly  into  their  several  ranks  and 
places.  First,  therefore,  order  doth  signify  that  mutual 
reference  or  relation,  that  things  sorted  into  their  several 
ranks  and  places,  have  between  themselves.  Secondly, 
that  standing,  which  each  thing  obtaineth,  in  that  it  is  better 
or  worse,  greater  or  lesser  than  another,  and  so  accordingly 
sorted  and  placed,  above  or  below  other,  in  the  orderly 
disposition  of  things.  The  power  of  holy  or  ecclesiastical 
order  is  nothing  else  but  that  power  which  is  specially 
given  to  men  sanctified  and  set  apart  from  others,  to  per- 
form certain  sacred  supernatural  and  eminent  actions, 
which  others  of  another  rank  may  not  at  all,  or  not  ordi- 


i 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        163 

narily  meddle  with.  As  to  preach  the  word,  administer 
the  sacraments,  and  the  like. 

"  The  next  kind  of  ecclesiastical  power  is  that  of  juris- 
diction. For  the  more  distinct  and  full  understanding 
whereof  we  must  note,  that  three  things  are  implied  in  the 
calling  of  ecclesiastical  ministers.  First,  an  election, 
choice,  or  designment  of  persons  fit  for  so  high  and  excel- 
lent employment.  Secondly,  the  consecrating  of  them, 
and  giving  them  power  and  authority  to  intermeddle  with 
things  pertaining  to  the  service  of  God,  to  perform  eminent 
acts  of  gracious  efficacy,  and  admirable  force,  tending  to 
the  procuring  of  the  eternal  good  of  the  sons  of  men,  and 
to  peld  unto  them  whom  Christ  hath  redeemed  with  his 
most  precious  blood,  all  the  comfortable  means,  assurances, 
and  helps  that  may  set  forward  their  eternal  salvation. 
Thirdly,  the  assigning  and  dividing  out  to  each  man,  thus 
sanctified  to  so  excellent  a  work,  that  portion  of  God's 
people  which  he  is  to  take  care  of,  who  must  be  directed 
by  him  in  things  that  pertain  to  the  hope  of  eternal  salva- 
tion. This  particular  assignation  giveth,  to  them  that  had 
only  the  power  of  order  before,  the  power  of  jurisdiction 
also  over  the  persons  of  men. 

"  Thus,  then,  it  is  necessary  that  the  people  of  God 
be  sorted  into  several  portions,  and  the  sheep  of  Christ 
divided  into  several  flocks,  for  the  more  orderly  guiding  of 
them,  and  yielding  to  them  the  means,  assurances,  and 
helps  that  may  set  them  forward  in  the  way  of  eternal  life  ; 
and  that  several  men  be  severally  and  specially  assigned 
to  take  the  care  and  oversight  of  several  flocks  and  por- 
tions of  God's  people.  The  apostles  of  Christ  and  their 
successors,  when  they  planted  the  churches,  so  divided 
the  people  of  God  converted  by  their  ministry,  into  parti- 
cular churches,  that  each  city  and  the  places  near  adjoin- 
ing did  make  but  one  church.  Now  because  the  unity 
and  peace  of  each  particular  church  of  God,  and  flock  of 
his  sheep,  dependeth  on  the  unity  of  the  pastor,  and  yet 
the  necessities  of  the  many  duties  that  are  to  be  performed 
iii  churches  of  so  large  extent,  require  more  ecclesiastical 
ministers  than  one :  therefore  though  there  be  many  pres- 
byters, that  is,  md^ny  fatherly  guides  of  one  church,  yet  there 
is  one  among  the  rest  that  is  specially  pastor  of  the  place, 
vfhOjfor  distinction  sake,  is  named  a   bishop;  to  whom  an 


164        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

eminent  and  peerelesse  power  is  given,  for  the  avoiding  of 
schisms  and  factions :  and  the  rest  are  but  assistants  and 
coadjutors,  and  named  by  the  general  name  of  presbyters. 
So  that  in  the  performance  of  the  acts  of  ecclesiastical 
ministry,  when  he  is  present  and  will  do  them  himself, 
they  must  give  place :  and  in  his  absence,  or  when  being 
present  he  needeth  assistance,  they  may  do  nothing  with- 
out his  consent  and  liking.  Yea  so  far,  for  order  sake,  is 
he  preferred  before  the  rest,  that  some  things  are  specially 
reserved  to  him  only,  as  the  ordaining  of  such  as  should 
assist  him  in  the  work  of  his  ministry,  the  reconciling  of 
penitents,  confirmation  of  such  as  were  baptized,  by  im- 
position of  hands,  dedication  of  churches,  and  such  like. 

"  These  being  the  diverse  sorts  and  kinds  of  ecclesias- 
tical power,  it  will  easily  appear  to  all  them  that  enter  into 
the  due  consideration  thereof,  that  the  power  of  ecclesias- 
tical or  sacred  order,  that  is,  the  power  and  authority  to 
intermeddle  with  things  pertaining  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  to  perform  eminent  acts  of  gracious  efficacy,  tending 
to  the  procuring  of  the  eternal  good  of  the  sons  of  men,  is 
EQUAL  and  the  same  in  all  those  whom  we  call  presby- 
ters, that  is,  fatherly  guides  of  God's  church  and  people : 
and  that  only  for  order  sake,  and  the  preservation  of 
peace,  there  is  a  limitation  of  the  use  and  exercise  of  the 
same.  Hereunto  agree  all  the  best  learned  among  the 
Romanists  themselves,  freely  confessing  that  that,  wherein 
a  bishop  excelleth  a  presbyter,  is  not  a  distinct  and  higher 
order,  or  power  of  order,  but  a  kind  of  dignity  and  office, 
or  employment  only.  Which  they  prove,  because  a  pres- 
byter ordained  per  saltum,  that  never  was  consecrated  or 
ordained  deacon,  may  notwithstanding  do  all  those  acts 
that  pertain  to  the  deacons  order :  (because  the  higher 
order  doth  always  imply  in  it  the  lower  and  inferior,  in  an 
eminent  and  excellent  sort.)  But  a  bishop  ordained  per 
saltum,  that  never  had  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter,  can 
neither  consecrate  and  administer  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  body,  nor  ordain  a  presbyter,  himself  being  none, 
nor  do  any  act  peculiarly  pertaining  to  presbyters.  Where- 
by it  is  most  evident,  that  that  wherein  a  bishop  excelleth 
a  presbyter,  is  not  a  distinct  power  of  order,  but  an  emi- 
nency  and  dignity  only,  specially  yielded  to  one  above  all 
the  rest  of  the  same  rank,  for  order  sake,  and  to  preserve 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       165 

the  unity  and  peace  of  the  church.  Hence  it  foUoweth, 
that  many  things  which  in  some  cases  presbyters  may 
lawfully  do,  are  peculiarly  reserved  unto  bishops,  as  Hie- 
rome  noteth ;  Potius  ad  honorem  sacerdotii,  quam  ad  legis 
necessitatem ; — Rather  for  the  honour  of  their  ministry,  than 
the  necessity  of  any  law.  And  therefore  we  read,  that 
presbyters,  in  some  places,  and  at  sometimes  did  impose 
hands,  and  confirm  such  as  were  baptized :  which  when 
Gregory,  bishop  of  Rome,  would  wholly  have  forbidden, 
there  was  so  great  exception  taken  to  him  for  it,  that  he 
left  it  free  again.  And  who  knoweth  not,  that  all  presby- 
ters, in  cases  of  necessity,  may  absolve  and  reconcile 
penitents ;  a  thing  in  ordinary  course  appropriated  unto 
bishops  ?  and  why  not  by  the  same  reason  ordain  presby- 
ters and  deacons  in  cases  of  like  necessity  ?  For,  seeing 
the  cause  why  they  are  forbidden  to  do  these  acts,  is,  be- 
cause to  bishops  ordinarily  the  care  of  all  churches  is 
committed,  and  to  them  in  all  reason  the  ordination  of  such 
as  must  serve  in  the  church  pertaineth,  that  have  the  chief 
care  of  the  church,  and  have  churches  wherein  to  employ 
them ;  which  only  bishops  have  as  long  as  they  retain 
their  standing :  and  not  presbyters,  being  but  assistants  to 
bishops  in  their  churches.  If  they  become  enemies  to 
God  and  true  religion,  in  case  of  such  necessity,  as  the 
care  and  government  of  the  church  is  devolved  to  the  pres- 
byters remaining  catholick,  and  being  of  a  better  spirit :  so 
the  duty  of  ordaining  such  as  are  to  assist  or  succeed  them 
in  the  work  of  the  ministry  pertains  to  them  likewise.  For 
if  the  power  of  order  and  authority  to  intermeddle  in  things 
pertaining  to  God's  service  be  the  same  in  all  presbyters, 
and  that  they  be  limited  in  the  execution  of  it,  only  for 
orders  sake,  so  that  in  case  of  necessity,  every  of  them 
may  baptize  and  confirm  them  whom  they  have  baptized, 
absolve  and  reconcile  penitents,  and  do  all  those  other 
acts  which  regularly  are  appropriated  unto  the  bishop 
alone ;  there  is  no  reason  to  be  given,  hwi  that  in  case  of 
necessity,  wherein  all  bishops  were  extinguished  by  death, 
or  being  fallen  into  heresy,  should  refuse  to  ordain  any  to 
serve  God  in  his  true  worship  ;  but  that  presbyters,  as  they 
may  do  all  other  acts,  whatsoever  special  challenge  bish- 
ops in  ordinary  course  make  unto  them,  might  do  this  also. 
Who  then  dare  condemn  all  those  worthy  ministers  of  God 


106       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

that  were  ordained  hy  presbyters  in  sundry  churches  of  the 
world,  at  such  times  as  bishops  in  those  parts  where  they 
lived,  opposed  themselves  against  the  truth  of  God,  and 
persecuted  such  as  professed  it. 

"  But  seeing  bishops  and  presbyters  are  in  the  power  of 
order  the  same  ;  as  when  the  bishops  of  a  whole  church  or 
country  fall  from  the  faith,  or  consent  to  them  that  so  do, 
the  care  of  the  church  is  devolved  to  the  presbyters  re- 
maining catholick ;  and  as  in  the  case  of  necessity  they 
may  do  all  other  things  regularly  reserved  to  bishops  only, 
(as  Ambrose  showeth,  that  the  presbyters  of  Egypt  were 
permitted  in  some  cases  to  confirm  the  baptized,  which 
thing  also  Gregorie  after  him  durst  not  condemn,)  so  in 
case  of  general  defect  of  the  bishops  of  a  whole  country, 
refusing  to  ordain  any  but  such  as  shall  consent  to  their 
heresies,  where  there  appeareth  no  hope  of  remedy  or  help 
from  other  parts  of  the  church,  the  presbyters  may  choose 
out  one  among  themselves  to  be  chief,  and  so  add  other  to 
their  numbers  by  the  imposition  of  his  and  their  hands. 
This  I  have  proved  in  my  third  book  out  of  the  authorities 
of  Armachanus,  and  sundry  other,  of  whom  Alexander  of 
Hales  speaketh.  To  which  we  may  add  that  which  Du- 
randus  hath,  where  he  saith :  That  Hierome  seemeth  to 
have  been  of  opinion,  that  the  highest  power  of  consecration 
or  order,  is  the  power  of  a  priest  or  elder.  So  that  every 
priest,  in  respect  of  his  priestly  power,  may  minister  all  sa- 
craments, CONFIRM  the  baptized,  and  give  all  orders  : 
howsoever  for  the  avoiding  of  the  peril  of  schism,  it  was 
ordained  that  one  should  be  chosen  to  have  a  pre-eminence 
above  the  rest,  who  was  named  a  bishop,  and  to  whom  it 
was  peculiarly  reserved  to  give  orders,  and  to  do  some 
such  other  things.  And  afterward  he  saith :  That  Hierome 
is  clearly  of  this  opinion."* 

One  observation  more  shall  conclude  this  section. 
Some  may  suppose,  that  if  the  power  of  orders,  or  ordain- 
ing, does  not  belong  solely  to  bishops,  and  so  constitute 
them  by  divine  right  a  superior  order,  yet  that  the  power 
oi  jurisdiction  does.  By  jurisdiction  is  meant  the  bishop's 
power  of  governing  and  judging  both  ministers  and  people. 
As  to  the  fact,  the  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  have 
this  power  each  in  his  own  diocess ;  but  by  what  right 
*  Dr.  Field  on  the  Church,  fol.  ed.,  pp.  155-157  and  704.  O.xford,  1628. 


i 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        167 

or  law  ?  If  episcopacy,  as  a  superior  order,  with  the 
high  prerogatives  claimed  for  it,  be  of  divine  right,  this 
jurisdiction  must  also  be  of  divine  right :  but  if  there 
should  be  express  acknowledgment  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Church  of  England  that  their  jurisdiction  is  of  merely 
HUMAN  origin,  this  will  be  another  clear  proof  that,  ac- 
cording to  this  Church,  bishops  have,  by  divine  right,  none 
of  these  prerogatives  over  presbyters,  but  are  by  the  Scrip- 
tures one  and  the  same  office.  Whatever  views  may  be 
entertained  as  to  the  Scriptural  right  of  the  king  of  Eng- 
land to  be  supreme  head  of  the  Church,  it  is  certain  the 
Church  of  England  maintains  it  as  a  fact;  and  here  we  have 
only  to  do  with  facts.  Now  the  act  of  parliament  in  the 
twenty-sixth  year  of  Henry  YIIL,  declares  that  the  king 
"  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  from  time  to  time,  to 
visit,  repress,  redress,  reform,  order,  correct,  restrain,  and 
amend  such  errors,  heresies,  abuses,  offences,  contempts 
and  enormities,  whatsoever  they  be,  which  hy  any  manner 
of  spiritual  authority  ox  jurisdiction,  ought  or  may  lawfully 
be  reformed."  This  was  in  1535.  According  to  the  full 
power  here  given,  commissions  were  issued  to  those  who 
had  bishoprics,  giving  them  a  license  for  their  jurisdiction 
as  hishops ;  and  they  only  held  their  jurisdiction  on  good 
behaviour,  and  at  the  king's  pleasure.  They  are  as  fol- 
lows : — "  Henry  the  VIII.  king  of  England  and  France, 
defender  of  the  faith,  lord  of  Ireland,  and,  under  Christ, 
supreme  head  of  the  Church  on  earth,  to  the  reverend  father 
in  Christ,  Edmund,  bishop  of  London,  peace,  seeing  all 
the  authority  of  jurisdiction,  and  every  kind  of  jurisdic- 
tion, as  well  that  which  is  called  secular,  as  that  which  is 
called  ECCLESIASTICAL,  emanates  primarily  from  the  kingly 
power  as  from  a  supreme  head,  &c.  We,  desiring  to  ac- 
cede to  your  humble  supplication  for  this  purpose,  commit 
our  office  and  authority  to  you  in  the  manner  and  form 
hereafter  described,  and  declare  you  to  be  licensed  and 
appointed,  therefore,  to  ordain  to  holy  orders,  &c.  Also  to 
make  such  visitations,  &c.,  as  the  bishops  of  London,  your 
predecessors,  in  past  times,  might  exercise,  by  the  laws  of 
this  realm,  and  not  otherwise,  &c.  And  to  do  every  thing 
that  in  any  way  concerns  episcopal  authority  and  jurisdic- 
tion, over  and  above  those  things  which  are  known  to  be 
committed  unto  you  by  authority  of  the  Scripture,  in  our 


168        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

stead,  name,  and  authority.  Having  great  confidence  in 
your  sound  doctrine,  purity  of  conscience,  integrity  of  life, 
and  faithful  industry  in  the  performance  of  your  duties, 
&c.,  WE  LICENSE  YOU,  by  thcsc  presents,  during  our  plea- 
sure, &c.,  to  answer  before  us  as  to  your  duty,  at  your 
bodily  peril ;  admonishing  you  in  the  mean  time  to  exer- 
cise your  office  piously,  holily,  according  to  the  rule  of  the 
gospel,  and  that  you  never  at  any  time  promote  any  one 
TO  HOLY  orders,"  &LC.,  (that  is,  otherwise  than  is  here 
directed.)  "  In  witness  whereof  we  have  commanded 
these  presents  to  be  made  and  confirmed  by  our  seal  for 
ecclesiastical  causes.  Given  November  12th,  1539,  and 
thirty-first  year  of  our  reign."  Now  these  commissions 
profess  to  direct  in  matters  "  besides  and  beyond  what  are 
known  to  belong  to  bishops  in  the  Scripture."  What  are 
those  matters  ?  The  answer  is  plain  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  commission,  for  it  mentions — the  ordination  of 
ministers,  episcopal  visitation,  diW^  jurisdiction  over  minis- 
ters and  people  in  that  diocess.  As  bishops,  none  of  these 
things  belong  to  them  any  more  than  to  any  other  minister, 
except  by  human  authority.  I  am  aware  Bishop  Burnet 
and  others  complain  of  the  hardship  of  these  commissions, 
and  say  that  they  were  laid  aside  afterward  :  this  does  not 
in  the  least  alter  the  question  of  law  and  authority.  By 
37th  Henry  VIII.,  cap.  17,  it  is  enacted  and  declared, — 
"  That  archbishops,  bishops,  &c.,  have  no  manner  oi  juris- 
diction ecclesiastical,  but  by,  under,  and  from  his  royal  ma- 
jesty." These  powers  of  the  sovereign  were  renewed 
again  as  law  in  Edward  VI.,  and  in  Elizabeth's  reign  ; 
and  they  continue  to  be  the  law  of  the  land,  as  to  the 
Church  of  England,  to  the  present  day. 

The  conclusion,  then,  as  to  the  Church  of  England,  is, 
that  the  divine  right  of  bishops  is  no  part  of  its  constitu- 
tion ;  but  that  presbyters  and  bishops  are,  by  authority  of 
the  Scripture,  one  and  the  same  office  ;  that  presbyters 
have  EQUAL  divine  right  to  ordain  ;  but  that,  as  a  human 
arrangement,  the  order  of  bishops  is  lawful :  and  that  the 
Book  of  Ordination  has  "  all  things  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose ;  neither  hath  it  any  thing  of  itself  superstitious  or 
ungodly r*     All  this  I  believe  ex  animo. 

*  Dr.  Holland,  king's  professor  of  divinity  at  Oxford,  says,  "  That  to 
affirm  the  office  of  bishop  to  be  different  from  that  of  presbyter  and 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        169 

How  lamentable  !  that  any  ministers  of  this  Church,  for- 
getting the  principles  of  the  reformers,  and  violating  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel,  should  weaken  Protestantism  and 
strengthen  the  hands  of  Popery,  by  insulting  all  other 
Protestant  ministers  as  schismatics ;  denouncing  their  ordi- 
nances as  the  offerings  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram ; 
thus  destroying  the  peace  of  all  the  Protestant  churches 
in  the  world!  May  Heaven  soon  lead  them  into  more 
Christian,  brotherly,  and  pacific  views !  May  all  Protest- 
ant churches  unite,  on  the  basis  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the 
spirit  of  Christianity,  to  proclaim  a  pure  gospel,  and  to 
bring  in  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  over  all  the  earth ! 


SECTION  VHI. 

BISHOPS  AND  PRESBYTERS  THE  SAME  ORDER,  SHOWN  BY 
THE  TESTIMONY  OF  ALL  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCHES  IN 
THE   WORLD. 

To  hear  some  high  Churchmen  talk  on  this  subject,  a 
person  would  be  led  to  think,  that  surely  all  the  Christian 
churches  in  the  world,  ancient  and  modern,  must  have 
maintained  that  bishops  are,  by  divine  right,  a  distinct 
order,  with  powers  and  prerogatives  of  a  very  extraordinary 
and  EXCLUSIVE  character.  How  otherwise  could  it  be, 
we  should  suppose,  that  men  pretending  to  learning  should 
dare  to  speak  so  pompously  about  them,  and  about  the 
consequences  of  being  blessed  with  such  an  order  ?  The 
only  reasonable  answer  that  can  be  given  is,  that  they  do 
not  understand  the  subject.  It  has  already  been  shown 
that  the  fathers  did  not  maintain  such  a  doctrine ;  no 
council  ever  maintained  it ;  and  we  now  proceed  to  show 
that  no  Christian  church  ever  maintained  this  doctrine. 

The  African  church  never  maintained  it ;  as  is  clear  by 
the  case  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  which  was,  at  one 
time,  one  of  the  four  or  five  great  patriarchates  into  which 
the  churches  in  the  whole  world  were  divided.     Gregory 

superior  to  it,  is  most  false  ;  contrary  to  Scripture,  to  the  fathers,  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  yea,  to  the  very  schoolmen 
themselves." — Dr.  Dwight's  Theology,  vol.  v,  p.  184,  8vo. 

8 


170       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Nazianzen  speaking,  in  his  oration  upon  Athatiasius,  about 
the  importance  of  the  see  of  Alexandria,  says,  "  It  is  as 
though  you  should  say  that  its  bishop  is  bishop  of  the  whole 
tvorlciy  Tertullian,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  African 
fathers,  teaches  most  expressly  that  bishops  had  no  supe- 
riority by  divine  right :  Jerome's  testimony  is  decisive,  as 
he  lived  so  near  to  Egypt,  having  spent  a  great  part  of  his 
life  in  Palestine. 

The  Greek  church  never  maintained  the  order  of  bishops 
by  divine  right :  this  is  proved  from  the  testimony  of  Fir- 
milian,  bishop  of  Cesarea ;  by  the  council  of  Ancyra,  in 
the  third  century ;  and  from  the  epistle  of  the  council  of 
Nice.  Theodoret,  also,  a  Greek  father  in  the  fifth  century, 
proves  the  same,  as  quoted  in  section  iii.  And  there  is 
no  sufficient  evidence,  I  believe,  that  the  modern  Greek 
church  has  decided  differently  from  the  ancient  Greek 
church. 

Let  us  come  to  the  Western  church,  as  it  is  called,  the 
Christian  church  in  Europe ;  and  this  as  either  included 
in  the  Latin  church,  or  in  those  churches  that  have  sepa- 
rated from  that  church. 

The  Church  of  Rome  never  maintained  such  an  order 
of  bishops,  by  divine  right,  as  our  high  Churchmen  main- 
tain. We  have  seen  the  testimony  of  Jerome  and  Augus- 
tine, whose  writings  have  had  greater  authority  in  that 
church  than  the  writings  of  all  the  other  fathers  besides. 
Jerome's  opinion,  nay,  his  very  words,  were  put  into  the 
canon  law,  the  ecclesiastical  law  of  that  church :  canon, 
Olim,  dist.  95,  et  canon,  Legimus,  dist.  93.  And  John 
Semeca,  a  doctor  of  the  canon  law,  in  his  Gloss  or  Com- 
ment on  the  law :  "  They  say,  indeed,  that  in  i)ie  first  age 
of  the  primitive  church  the  names  and  ofiices  of  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  were  common ;  but  that  in  the  second  age 
of  the  primitive  church,  both  the  names  and  offices  began 
to  be  distinguished.''^  The  canon,  Legimus,  dist.  93,  con- 
tains Jerome's  Epistle  to  Evagrius  entire.  The  first  chap- 
ter, under  dist.  95,  is,  as  we  have  said,  in  the  very  words 
of  Jerome,  as  given  at  page  93  of  this  Essay.  The  sixth 
chapter  is  wholly  taken  from  the  treatise  on  the  "  Seven 
Degrees"  found  in  Jerome's  Works,  as  mentioned  at 
page  92.  It  is  as  follows  :  "  Behold,  I  declare  that  pres- 
byters have  the  power  to  perform  the  sacraments,  even 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        171 

while  their  own  bishops  are  standing  at  the  altar.  But, 
seeing  it  is  written,  '  Let  the  presbyters  be  honoured  with 
double  honour,  especially  such  as  labour  in  the  word  of 
God,'  it  is  the  duty  of  presbyters  to  preach  ;  their  blessing 
edifies  the  people  ;  confirmation  by  them  is  suitably  per- 
formed ;  it  is  proper  for  them  to  give  the  communion ;  it 
is  necessary  that  they  should  visit  the  sick,  pray  for  the 
weak,  and  perf or fn  all  the  sacraments  which  God  has  given. 
Let  none  of  the  bishops,  inflated,  on  this  account,  with  the 
envy  of  a  diabolical  temptation,  show  their  wrath  in  the 
church,  if  the  presbyters  sometimes  exhort  the  people  ;  if 
they  preach  in  the  churches  ;  if,  as  it  is  written,  they  bless 
the  people.  To  any  one  that  opposes  these  things,  I  would 
say.  Let  him  who  forbids  the  presbyters  what  God  has 
commanded  them,  tell  me,  who  is  greater  than  Christ  ?  or 
what  is  to  be  preferred  to  his  body  and  to  his  blood  ?  If 
the  presbyter  consecrates  Christ,  when  he  pronounces  the 
blessing  upon  the  sacrament  on  the  altar  of  God ;  is  not 
he  worthy  to  bless  the  people,  who  is  worthy  even  to  con- 
secrate Christ  1  It  is  by  your  bidding,  O  ye  most  unjust 
bishops !  that  the  presbyter,  as  to  the  laity  and  the  women, 
has  been  deprived  of  the  office  of  giving  God's  benediction 
— has  lost  the  very  use  of  his  tongue — has  no  confidence 
to  preach — has  been  mutilated  of  every  part  of  his  powers 
and  authority — nothing  but  the  bare  name  of  a  presbyter  is 
left — the  plenitude  and  perfection  of  his  consecration  are 
taken  away.  Is  this  your  honour,  O  ye  bishops,  thus  to 
bring  ruin  upon  the  flock  1  For  when  by  your  power  you 
take  away  from  the  pastors  the  privilege  of  performing 
with  diligence  what  God  has  commanded,  contagion  and 
destruction  spread  among  the  flocks,  and  you  bring  evil 
upon  the  Lord's  inheritance,  while  you  wish  alone  to  be 
great  in  the  church.  We  read,  that,  in  the  beginning, 
presbyters  were  commanded  to  rule  in  the  affairs  of  the 
church — presbyters  were  sometimes  in  the  councils  of 
bishops ;  for  presbyters  themselves,  as  we  read,  were  called 
bishops :  accordingly  it  is  written  to  a  bishop,  '  Neglect 
not  the  gift  which  is  in  thee  by  the  laying  on  of  my  hands  ;' 
and,  in  another  place,  to  presbyters,  '  (The  Holy  Ghost,) 
who  has  made  you  bishops  to  rule  the  church  of  God.^  But 
proud  bishops  hate  to  have  this  name  given  to  presbyters  : 
they  do  not  approve  of  what  Christ  approved,  who  washed 


172       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  feet  of  the  di&ciples — ^who  was  baptized  by  John, 
though  John  exclaimed  that  he  needed  to  be  baptized  by 
him.  I  write  these  things  for  this  purpose,  that  if  the 
ERROR  OF  PAST  TIME  cannot  he  remedied,  humility  at  least 
may  at  present  be  preserved,  that  presbyters  may  perform 
those  things  in  their  churches,  which  are  done  at  Rome, 
in  the  East,  in  Italy,  in  Crete,  in  Cyprus,  in  Africa,  in 
Illyricum,  in  Spain,  in  Britain,  and  even  in  part  of  Gaul  j 
and  which  is  done  in  every  place  where  that  humility 
continues  which  takes  place  in  heaven,  (a  matter  still 
higher,)  where  the  seats  of  angels  have  their  due  order," 
The  writer  of  this  Essay  expressly  disclaims  any  intention 
by  this  quotation  to  reflect  upon  all  bishops,  as  unrighteous 
or  tyrannical  men.  Many  bishops,  in  different  ages,  have 
been  truly  men  of  God.  His  chief  object  in  the  quotation 
is  to  show  the  views  of  the  Romish  Church  on  the  subject 
of  episcopacy  by  divine  right,  at  the  period  when  this  part 
of  the  canon  law  was  composed.  Episcopacy,  in  general, 
is  certainly  here  declared  to  be  an  error  of  past  times : 
and  bishops,  many  of  them,  are  spoken  of  as  usurping 
tyrants.  Presbyters  are  spoken  of  as  despoiled  by  them 
of  the  authority  and  usefulness  which,  by  divine  right,  truly 
belonged  to  presbyters. 

Part  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  council  of  Hispala,  in 
Spain,  in  the  seventh  century,  is  worth  translating  : — "  It 
has  been  reported  to  us  that  Agapius,  bishop  of  Cordova, 
has  frequently  appointed  village  bishops  (chor-episcopi) 
or  presbyters  {icho  hy  the  canons  are  both  one)  to  consecrate 
altars  and  churches  without  the  presence  of  the  bishop. 
Which,  indeed,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  principally  for 
this  reason,  that  the  bishop  is  a  man  ignorant  oi ecclesiastical 
discipline.  Therefore  it  ought  to  be  determined  unani- 
mously, that  no  such  license  should  be  used  among  us, 
knowing  that  the  appointment  and  consecration  of  an  altar 
is  not  allowed  either  to  a  presbyter  or  to  a  village  bishop. 
For  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  the  Lord  commanded  that 
Moses  alone  should  erect  the  altar  in  the  tabernacle,  that 
he  alone  should  anoint  it,  because  he  was  the  high  priest, 
as  it  is  written  concerning  him,  '  Moses  and  Aaron  among 
his  priests.'  Therefore  that  which  the  head  priests  alone 
might  do,  of  whom  Moses  and  Aaron  were  types,  the 
preshyterSy  who  resemble  Aaron's  sons,  ought  not  to  pre- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       173 

sume  to  seize.  For  though  in  the  dispensation  of  the  sa- 
cred mysteries  most  things  are  com?non  to  presbyters  and 
bishops,  yet  some  by  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament^ 
and  so?ne  by  the  authority  of  the  emperors  laws^  and  by 
ecclesiastical  rules,  the  presbyters  know  to  be  forbidden  to 
them,  as  the  consecration  of  presbyters,  deacons,  and  vir- 
gins, the  erection  of  an  altar,  the  benediction  and  the  unc- 
tion ;  seeing  it  is  not  permitted  to  them  to  give  the  bene- 
diction to  the  church,  nor  to  consecrate  altars,  nor  to  lay 
on  hands  in  baptism,  nor  to  give  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such  as 
are  converted  from  heresy,  nor  to  make  the  unction  or  holy 
ointment,  nor  to  sign  the  forehead  of  the  baptized  with  the 
holy  ointment,  nor  even  to  reconcile  a  penitent  publicly  in 
the  time  of  mass,  nor  to  give  recommendatory  letters.  For 
ail  these  things  are  disallowed  to  presbyters,  because  they 
are  not  in  the  highest  part  of  the  priesthood,  which,  by  the 
command  of  the  canons,  belongs  only  to  bishops.^''  Here 
are  distinctions  enough,  with  a  witness,  between  bishops 
and  presbyters.  And  here  is  a  true  history  of  them  : — an 
argument  from  a  type  or  figure  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
ecclesiastical  rules  ;  and  the  emperor's  laws.  But  do 
these  make  the  distinction  to  be  of  divine  right  ?  The 
council  expressly  declares  the  very  reverse,  and  that  it  is 
"  by  the  command  of  the  canons."  Besides,  presbyters 
and  chor-episcopi,  village  bishops  are  treated  as  the  same  : 
one  law  is  applied  to  both.  Now  Bishop  Taylor  and 
others  grant  that  ^^.llage  bishops  had  the  power  to  ordain, 
&c.,  and  that  such  regulations  only  limit  its  exercise  ;  the 
same  is  true  as  to  presbyters.  And  the  author  of  the  Trea- 
tise on  the  Seven  Degrees,  above  mentioned,  gives  the 
same  account.  He  says,  "  The  ordination  of  clergymen, 
the  consecration  of  virgins,  the  dedication  of  altars,  and 
the  preparation  of  the  chrism,  were  reserved  to  the  bishop 
SOLELY  ybr  the  purpose  of  giving  him  authority  or  honour, 
lest  the  discipline  of  the  church,  being  separated  among 
many,  divisions  should  arise  between  the  ministers,  and 
should  produce  general  scandal.  For  this  cause  also  the 
election  of  bishops  has  lately  been  transferred  to  the  me- 
tropolitan ;  and  while  this  high  power  is  given  to  the  me- 
tropolitan, the  same  power  is  taken  away  from  others ;  so 
that  the  bishops  themselves,  as  high  priests,  begin  to  feel 
another  placed  over  them ;  and  this  not  as  a  matter  of  divine 


174        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

right,  but  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  arising  from  the  nature 
of  the  case."  Here  the  ground  of  the  distinction  between 
bishops  and  presbyters  is  considered  to  be  the  same  as 
that  between  bishops  and  archbishops,  that  is  to  say,  it  is 
merely  an  ecclesiastical,  prudential  arrangement. 

Mr.  Johnson,  the  translator  of  the  canons  of  the  univer- 
sal church,  a  strong  succession  advocate,  and  a  man  of 
great  learning,  says,  "  That  opinion,  that  the  order  of 
priests  and  bishops  was  the  same,  prevailed  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  for  four  or  five  ages  [centuries]  before  the  Refor- 
mation."* Thus,  then,  we  have  the  history  of  the  matter 
in  this  church  up  to  the  Reformation.  Jerome  determines 
the  point  in  his  day,  A.  D.  400.  The  canon  law  does  the 
same,  A.  D.  1200.  The  learned  Mr.  Johnson,  an  unex- 
ceptionable witness  with  high  Churchmen,  settles  the  point 
for  five  hundred  years  before  the  Reformation.  Bishop 
Burnet,  too,  we  have  seen,  says,  that  at  the  Reformation 
it  was  "  the  common  style  of  that  age  to  reckon  bishops 
and  priests  the  satne  office. ^^ 

Finally,  the  council  of  Trent  positively  refused  to  ac- 
knowledge the  doctrine  of  the  order  of  bishops  by  divine 
right.  They  decreed  that  the  hierarchy  was  of  divine 
right,  and  that  bishops  were  in  fact  above  presbyters  ;  but 
the  pope's  legates,  and  all  who  more  especially  belonged  to 
the  court  of  Rome,  most  strenuously  opposed  the  doctrine  of 
divine  right  of  bishops.  In  these  matters  we  only  speak  to 
facts ;  and  the  facts  are  as  above  stated,  as  any  one  may 
see  by  consulting  the  acts  and  history  of  the  council. 

It  perhaps  may  surprise  some,  that  we  so  decidedly 
charge  the  succession  scheme  as  semi-popery,  when  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  bishops,  an  essential  part  of 
the  scheme  of  our  high  Church  divines,  the  Church  of 
Rome  differs  from  them.  The  reader  has  only  to  consider, 
that  the  same  end  may  be  aimed  at  by  different  means. 
This  is  the  case  here.  We  said,  in  the  commencement 
of  this  Essay,  that  these  high  Church  divines,  "  come  for- 
ward to  effect  that  in  the  Protestant  church,  which  Popery 
endeavours  to  effect  as  to  the  church  imiversal."  Their 
machinery  is  different.  The  Popery  of  Rome  created  a 
one-headed  pope  :  our  high  Church  divines  try  to  create  a 
many-headed  pope.  The  Popery  of  both  has  one  mind — 
*  Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  vol.  ii,  Pref.,  p.  54'^ 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        175 

bigoted,  exclusive,  intolerant,  and  persecuting.  All  the  ju- 
risdiction of  Popery  centres  in  the  pope.  He  imparts  of  his 
FULXESs  to  the  bishops  ;  they  swear  fidelity  to  the  pope. 
They  support  the  pope,  and  the  pope  supports  them ;  and 
altogether  they  unite  to  bind  the  church  in  fetters  of  iron. 
Our  succession-men  place  all  authority  by  divine  right  in 
the  bishops.  The  bishops,  according  to  this  scheme,  are  to 
reward  them,  by  giving  them  the  exclusive  right  to  minis- 
ter the  ordinances  of  Christ,  They  are  to  support  each 
other,  in  order  to  form  a  chain  to  bind  in  Popish  bondage 
the  Protestant  church,  or  else  to  excommunicate  from  the 
pale  of  Christianity  such  as  bend  not  to  their  authority.  Pre- 
vention is  better  than  cure  ;  and  it  is  hoped  that  this  hum- 
ble effort,  under  God's  blessing,  may  do  something  to  ex- 
pose the  Popery  lying  at  the  root  of  the  scheme  it  opposes. 
The  authors  of  the  Oxford  Tracts  for  the  Times  are  Eng- 
lish Jesuits,  and  aim  to  accomplish  for  Anglican  Popery^ 
w^hat  the  Roman  Jesuits  do  for  Roman  Popery.  There  is  a 
conspiracy  :  it  is  disguised  Popery  !  May  Heaven  scatter 
their  counsel,  and  cause  the  gospel  to  run  and  be  glorified ! 

We  have  shown  that  the  original  reformed  Church  of 
England  gives  no  sanction  to  this  semi-popish  scheme : 
see  section  vii. 

The  Lutheran  church  never  maintained  the  divine  right 
of  bishops.  The  archbishop  of  Cologn  joined  them,  but 
they  never  used  his  episcopal  powers  to  give  an  order  of 
jure  divino  bishops  to  their  church.  They  retain  the  name, 
in  some  places,  but  they  have  no  jure  divino  episcopal  or- 
dinations. About  1528,  says  Haynes,  in  his  translation 
of  Melchior  Adam's  Life  of  Luther,  "  by  the  advice  of  Lu- 
ther, and  by  the  command  of  John  the  Elector,  was  ordain- 
ed a  visitation  of  the  churches  in  Saxony."  In  1528  Lu- 
ther put  forth  an"  Institution  of  Visiters."  Haynes  quotes 
Luther,  saying,  "  We  are  visiters,  that  is,  bishops,  and  we 
find  poverty  and  scarcity  everywhere.  The  Lord  send 
forth  workmen  into  his  harvest.  Amen."  And  in  another 
place  to  Spalatinus,  "  Our  visitation  goeth  on  ;  of  what  mise- 
ries are  we  eye  witnesses  ;  and  how  often  doe  we  remem- 
ber you,  when  we  find  the  like  or  greater  miseries  in  that 
harsh-natured  people  of  Voytland  !  Let  us  beseech  God  to 
be  present  with  us,  and  that  he  would  promote  the  work 
of  his  poore  bishops,  who  is  our  best  and  most  faithful  Bishop 


176        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

against  all  the  arts  and  forces  of  Satan.  Amen."  And 
again, — "  In  our  Adsitation  in  the  territories  of  Wittemberg, 
we  find  as  yet  all  pastors  agreeing  with  their  people,  but 
the  people  not  so  forward  for  the  word  and  sacraments."* 
again,  "  Luther  wrote  thus  to  Melancthon :  '  Concerning 
obedience  to  be  performed  to  the  bishops,  as  in  jurisdiction 
and  the  common  ceremonies,  I  pray  you  have  a  care,  look 
to  yourself,  and  give  no  more  than  you  have,  lest  ye  should 
be  compelled  again  to  a  sharper  and  more  dangerous  warre 
for  the  defence  of  the  gospel.  I  know  that  you  always 
except  the  gospel  in  those  articles  :  but  I  fear  lest  after- 
ward they  should  accuse  us  of  breach  of  our  covenant, 
and  inconstancy,  if  we  observe  not  what  they  please.  For 
they  will  take  our  graunts  in  the  large,  larger,  largest  sense, 
and  hold  their  own  strictly,  and  as  strictly  as  they  can.  In 
briefe,  I  wholly  dislike  this  agitation  for  concord  in  doc- 
trine, as  being  a  thing  utterly  impossible,  unlesse  the  pope 
will  abolish  his  popedom.'  "f  Luther  was  no  more  than  a 
presbyter,  but  he  ordained  their  first  bishop.  "About 
this  time  the  bishoprick  of  Neoburgh,  by  Sala,  was  voyd  ; 
there  Nicolas  Amsdorf,  a  divine  born  of  a  noble  family,  was  j 
enstalled  by  Luther  at  the  command  of  the  elector  of  Sax- 
ony, the  patron  of  that  diocese ;  and  Julius  Pflugius,  whom 
the  canons  of  the  colledge  chose,  was  refused.  Luther 
placed  him  in  the  bishoprick  Jan.  20,  A.  D.  1542.  This 
thing,  as  many  conceived,  gave  occasion  to  other  stirres, 
and  very  much  offended  the  emperour,  who  much  affected 
Pflugius  for  divers  respects.  Of  this  we  see  more  in 
Amsdorf 's  Life.  After  this  Luther  wrote  a  book  in  the 
German  tongue,  and  call'd  it  '  The  Pattern  of  the  Inau- 
guration of  a  true  Christian  Bishop.'  "§ 

"  The  gospel,"  says  one  of  the  Lutheran  articles,  "  gives 
to  those  that  are  set  over  the  churches  a  command  to  teach 
the  gospel,  to  remit  sins,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and 

*  Page  71,  4to.    London,  1641.  t  Pages  83,  84. 

%  Melchior  Adam,  in  the  Life  of  Amsdorf,  mentions  this  matter  as 
follows:  "On  the  20th  day  of  January,  1542,  the  elector  Frederic, 
and  J.  Ernestus,  the  brother  dukes  of  Saxony,  being  present,  in  the  city 
of  Neoburg,  by  Sala,  this  noble  and  unmarried  person  [Amsdorf]  was 
ordained  bishop  by  Luther :  Nicolas  Medler,  the  pastor  of  Neoburg, 
George  Spalatinus,  the  pastor  of  Aldenburg,  and  Wolfgang  Steinius, 
another  pastor,  joining  with  Luther  in  the  imposition  of  hands.^\ 

§  Page  102. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        177 

jurisdiction  also.  And  by  the  confession  of  all,  even  our 
adversaries,  'tis  manifest,  that  this  power  is,  by  divine  right, 
common  to  all  that  are  set  over  the  churches,  whether  they 
be  called  pastors,  or  presbyters,  or  bishops." 

"  But  one  thing  made  a  difference  afterward  between 
bishops  and  presbyters,  viz.,  ordination,  because  'twas  or- 
der'd  that  one  bishop  should  ordain  ministers  in  several 
churches  :  but  since  bishops  and  pastors  are  not  different 
degrees  hy  divine  right,  'tis  manifest,  that  an  ordination, 
performed  by  a  pastor  in  his  own  church,  is  valid ;  and 
that  the  common  jurisdiction  of  excommunicating  those 
that  are  guilty  of  manifest  crimes  does  belong  to  all 
pastors."* 

The  party  of  high  Churchmen  have  lately  republished  a 
tract  of  Mr.  Charles  Leslie,  the  nonjuror,  on  episcopacy, 
in  a  periodical  called  "  The  Voice  of  the  Church."  In 
this  tract,  Leslie  says,  the  Lutherans  "  still  retain  epis- 
copacy." Now  could  such  men  as  Leslie,  and  can  such 
men  as  Dr.  Hook  and  the  Oxford  Tract-men,  be  ignorant 
of  the  principles  and  facts  just  stated  about  the  Lutheran 
church  1  Can  they  be  ignorant,  therefore,  that  the  episco- 
pacy of  the  Lutheran  church,  and  the  episcopacy  which 
they  advocate,  have  little  in  common  but  the  name ;  and 
that  these  two  systems  of  episcopacy  totally  differ  in  all 
the  great  points  for  which  high  Churchmen  most  strenu- 
ously contend  ?  If  they  are  not  ignorant  of  these  things, 
where  is  the  honesty  of  leading  the  public  mind  astray  by 
the  mere  ambiguities  of  language  ?  It  is  painful  to  be  under 
the  necessity  of  exposing  these  dishonourable  proceed- 
ings. But  these  gentlemen  must  blame  themselves.  The 
fault  is  their  own ;  and  it  is  but  justice  to  the  public  to 
expose  it.f 

*  Abridgment  of  Mr.  James  Owen's  Plea,  pp.  40,  4L 
t  The  Rev.  J.  Sinclair  has  occupied  about  ten  pages  of  his  work  on 
Episcopal  or  Apostolical  Succession,  with  the  sophistical  ambiguity 
noticed  in  the  text :  he  has  placed  it  in  front  of  all  his  arguments,  as 
though  he  had  nothing  better  to  produce.  In  this  attempt  he  tries  to 
bring  in  the  Lutheran  church,  Calvin,  Beza,  &c.,  for  the  support  of 
episcopacy  by  divine  right.  The  reader  has  seen  the  case  of  the  Lu- 
theran church.  The  Augsburgh  Confession  expressly  declares,  that, 
*'  according  to  the  gospel,  or  jure  divino,  no  jurisdiction  belongs  to 
bishops  as  bishops."  Beza  acknowledges  bishops,  so  does  the  New 
Testament.      He   distinguishes   them   into  three  kinds, — Scriptural, 

8* 


178       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

The  French  church,  and  the  reformed  church  in  Germany, 
both  maintain  equality  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  The 
synod  of  Dort,  representing  the  reformed  church  of  Ger- 
many, adopted  the  confession  of  faith  belonging  to  the 
Belgic  church.  The  thirty-first  article  contains  this  state- 
ment :  "As  regards  the  ministers  of  the  divine  word,  they 
have  everyw^here  the  same  power  and  authority."  The 
pastors  and  seniors  of  the  French  churches,  met  in  national 
council  at  Vitry  in  1682,  subscribed  the  same  confession. 
King  James  sent  some  English  bishops  and  divines  to  the 
synod  of  Dort.  They  gave  their  suffrages  to  this  confes- 
sion, along  with  the  rest  of  the  divines,  as  is  clearly  stated 
in  session  146.  This  consent  was  caught  at  by  some  to 
impugn  the  very  existence  of  an  order  of  bishops  at  all  in 
the  Church  of  England,  even  as  a  mere  prudential  or 
ecclesiastical  arrangement.  Carlton,  bishop  of  Chiches- 
ter, who  was  one  of  those  that  had  been  present  at  the 
synod  of  Dort  by  the  order  of  King  James,  replied  to  this 
misinterpretation  of  their  consent  to  that  article,  and 
showed  that  he  and  his  colleagues  had  objected  to  such  a 
construction  of  the  sense  of  the  articles  as  would  encourage 
opposition  to  all  exercise  of  superintendency  by  one  class 
of  ministers  over  others.  The  members  of  the  synod  with 
whom  he  conversed  declared  they  wished  for  some  such 
superintendency  as  they  supposed  the  English  bishops  exer- 
cised, as  calculated  to  promote  good  order,  and  to  prevent 
divisions  in  the  church.  Yet  they  all,  the  English  bishops 
and  divines  too,  gave  their  votes  for  the  confession  just 
quoted,  that,  "  as  regards  the  ministers  of  the  divine  word, 
they  have  everywhere  the  same  power  and  authority.''^  The 
case  seems  to  be  this  :*  they  all  believed  that,  by  divine 
right,  all  ministers  of  the  divine  word,  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, were  equal ;  but  that,  as  a  prudential  ecclesiastical 

human,  and  antichristian :  high  Church  bishops  he  classes  among  the 
last.  See  references  to  him,  and  to  Calvin,  &c.,  in  the  following  sec- 
tion. What  delusion,  to  pretend  the  authority  of  these  reformers  for 
such  an  episcopacy  as  Mr.  Sinclair  and  his  high  Church  brethren 
maintain  ! 

*  So  Bishop  Carlton,  in  his  Treatise  of  Jurisdiction,  p.  7,  quoted  by 
Calamy  in  his  Defence  of  Moderate  Nonconformity  :  "  The  poiocr  of 
order,  by  all  writers  that  I  could  see,  even  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  is 
understood  to  be  immediately  from  Christ  given  to  all  bishops  and 
priests  alike  in  their  consecration." — Calamy,  vol.  i,  p.  104,  edit.  1703. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        179 

arrangement,  an  order  of  bishops,  as  superintendents  over 
other  ministers,  was  not  antiscriptiiral,  nor  ungodly ;  but 
calculated  to  promote  order  and  peace  in  the  church,  and 
to  prevent  divisions.  This  has  certainly  been  the  general 
opinion  and  practice  of  the  church  from  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century,  up  to  this  day.  The  church  is  placed 
between  two  evils — the  tyranny  of  the  people,  and  the 
tyranny  of  ministers.  The  divine  plan  favours  neither. 
The  Scriptures  lay  down  only  general  principles,  and 
leave  the  details  of  church  government  to  every  society ; 
and  while  nothing  is  done  contrary  either  to  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  Scripture,  by  either  ministers  or  people,  we 
may  approve  of  all,  and  leave  all  to  the  full  exercise  of 
their  own  choice.  Whoever  takes  upon  him  to  condemn 
those  who  keep  to  these  limits,  is  an  enemy  to  the  peace 
of  the  church. 

It  is  a  plain  Scriptural  principle  that  ministers  are  to 
govern  the  people  ; — that  they  are  to  govern  according  to 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  their  commission ; — and  that,  w^hile 
they  so  govern,  the  people  are  bound  by  the  authority  of 
the  word  of  God  to  suhmit  to  their  government,  and  to 
honour  them  as  those  who  watch  for  their  souls ;  but 
when  ministers  violate  the  law  of  their  commission,  their 
authority  so  far  ceases,  and  the  people  are,  in  that  propor- 
tion, free  from  the  obligation  to  obey  them.  A  well-guarded 
superintendency  of  one  class  of  ministers  over  other  minis- 
ters, if  determined  upon  by  the  church,  is  allowable  ;  and 
is  a  useful  arrangement.  All  such  plans  must  be  judged 
by  their  own  character  and  administration.  Every  reflect- 
ing reader  will  equally  admire  the  divine  wisdom  in  what 
is  defined,  and  in  what  is  undefined.  What  is  defined^ 
guards -against  anarchy ;  what  is  undefined,  guards  against 
tyranny.  May 'Heaven  grant  both  ministers  and  people 
to  see  and  preserve  their  privileges,  without  abusing  the 
same,  either  to  anarchy  or  tyranny ! 

The  Rejnonstrafits  perfectly  acquiesced  in  the  above 
principles,  as  may  be  seen  in  their  Apology  by  Epis- 
copius.* 

The  Waldenses  had  the  same  principles.  There  are 
two  reasons  for  mentioning  this  remarkable  people  here. 
The  first  is,  an  occasional  pretence  by  some  Churchmen, 
*  Episcopi  0pp.,  vol.  ii,  par.  secund.,  p.  236,  fol.,  ed.  1665. 


180        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

that  they  have  had  their  order  of  episcopacy  by  divine  right 
through  this  church ;  another  is,  a  feeble  and  ineffectual 
attempt  of  some  Moravian  historians  to  claim  for  that 
church  some  superiority  on  the  same  ground.  In  "  An 
Account  of  the  Doctrine,  Manners,  Liturgy,  and  Idiom  of 
the  Unitas  Fratrum,  [that  is,  the  Moravians,]  taken  from, 
and  comprising  the  Supplement  [dedicated  to  the  Church 
of  England]  of  the  Vouchers  to  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Honourable  the  House  of  Commons,  concern- 
ing the  Church  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum,  lately  printed  in 
folio,"  London,  1749,  8vo.,  we  have  a  long  extract  from  a 
letter  of  Jablonsky,  a  Moravian  bishop,  to  Archbishop 
Wake.  In  this  he  quotes  Comenius,  another  Moravian 
bishop  and  historian,  in  proof  that  "  the  Bohemian  Brethren, 
arising  from  the  ashes  of  Huss,  regularly  received  the 
episcopal  order — anno  1467,"  as  follows  :  "  The  Brethren's 
chief  concern  was  about  pastors  for  the  souls :  whence 
they  should  get  them,  when  those  they  had  at  present 
should  decease.  It  was  too  uncertain  a  thing,  to  wait  till 
some  of  the  Roman  ordination,  for  the  love  of  truth,  should 
come  over  to  them.  And  they  remembered,  that  the  fore- 
mentioned  primate  of  Bohemia,  Archbishop  Rokyzane,  had 
often  testified  that  all  must  be  renewed  from  the  bottom. 
Therefore  an  ordination  was  to  be  begun  at  home,  by  that 
power  which  Christ  had  given  his  church.  But  they  were 
afraid  that  it  might  not  be  a  regular  ordination  if  a  pres- 
byter should  create  a  presbyter,  and  not  a  bishop.  At 
length,  in  the  year  1467,  the  chief  persons  from  Bohemia 
and  Moravia,  to  the  number  of  about  seventy,  met  together 
in  a  village  near  Richnow,  called  Lhota ;  and,  having 
poured  fourth  many  prayers  and  tears  to  God,  that  he 
would  vouchsafe  to  show  whether  he  approved^-^f  their 
design,  they  resolved  to  inquire  the  divine  will  by  lot. 
They  chose,  therefore,  by  vote,  nine  men  from  amon-g 
them ;  and,  having  put  into  the  hands  of  a  child  twelve 
pieces  of  paper  folded  up,  they  bid  him  distribute  to  those 
nine  men.  Now  nine  of  the  papers  were  empty,  and  only 
on  three  stood  written — It  is :  so  that  it  was  possible  they 
all  might  get  empty  papers,  which  would  have  imported  a 
negative  will  of  God.  But  so  it  was,  that  the  three  written 
ones  came  into  the  hands  of  three  among  them,  viz., 
Matthias  Kuhnwald,  a  very  pious  man  ;   Thomas  Przelau- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        181 

tins,  a  learned  man  ;  and  Elias  Krzenowius,  a  man  of  sin- 
gular prudence.  These  found  Stephen,  bishop  of  the 
Waldenses,  who  sending  for  the  other  bishop,  and  some 
of  the  ministers,  declared  to  them  their  descent  from  Con- 
stantine's  time  ;  and  also  the  articles  of  their  doctrine,  and 
the  dreadful  sufferings  they  had  undergone  in  Italy  and 
France ;  and  having  heard  again,  with  approbation  and 
congratulation,  the  account  which  ours  gave  of  their  with- 
holding themselves  as  well  from  the  Calixtines  also  now, 
as  formerly  from  the  pope  ;  and,  finally,  to  enable  these 
three  ministers  to  ordain,  they  created  them  bishops  by  im- 
position of  hands,  and  sent  them  back  in  peace."  This 
is  Comenius's  account,  who  died  1670.  Then  Jablonsky 
speaks  of  the  succession  of  these  bishops  in  "  The  Unity," 
as  having  "  gone  on  uninterruptedly  from  the  first  begin- 
ning of  the  Unity  till  1650;"  and  he  proceeds  with  an 
account  of  the  succession  till  the  time  of  writing  to  Arch- 
bishop Wake.  At  the  close  of  his  letter,  the  mention  of 
the  "  episcopal  succession"  occurs  three  times  in  two 
pages  ;  and  at  page  135  the  Church  of  England  is  spoken 
of  as  "  their  only  episcopal  sister  in  the  Protestant  world." 
Arvid  Gradin,  a  person  of  great  trust,  and  employed  on 
the  most  important  embassies  among  the  Moravians,  thus 
briefly  describes  this  affair  :  "  Being  solicitous  about  a 
regular  and  apostolical  ordination  of  pastors,  there  met  in 
the  year  1467,  out  of  all  Bohemia  and  Moravia  grave,  and 
pious  men,  about  seventy  in  all,  who  sent  three  of  their 
number,  being  marked  out  by  lot,  to  Stephen,  bishop  of 
the  Waldenses,  then  under  banishment  in  x\ustria.  He 
having  called  together  the  other  bishops,  his  colleagues, 
consecrated  these  three  persons,  who  were  ministers  and 
teachers  remarkable  for  their  piety  and  learning,  bishops, 
by  imposition  of  hands :  their  names  were  Matthias  of 
Cunewald,  Thomas  Praelautensis,  and  Elias  Chrzenovitz." 
He  then  speaks  of  "  Comenius  complaining  that  he,  like 
Elias,  was  alone  left  remaining,  without  any  hopes  of 
handing  down  the  apostolical  succession  which  was  lodged 
in  him;  and  accordingly  he  wrote,  in  the  year  1660,  a 
very  melancholy  lamentation^  and  dedicated  it  to  the  English 
Church."  This,  and  much  more  in  the  same  authors, 
shows  a  disposition  unduly  to  magnify  episcopal  ordina- 
tion and  succession.     Indeed  I  think  that  both  Comenius 


182        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION, 

and  Jablonsky  really  believed  in  the  divine  right  of  epis- 
copacy, a^  did  many  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  times  of  Comenius — times  of  much  high  Churchism  in 
England.  It  was  well  for  the  Brethren  that  the  truth  of 
the  matter  was  not  so ;  otherwise  the  church  of  God  had 
perished  among  the  Bohemians  when  Comenius  died,  for 
Bishop  Holmes  informs  us  in  the  work  noticed  below,  that 
the  succession  expired  in  that  branch  at  the  death  of  Come- 
nius, and  was  not  renewed  again  for  nearly  one  hundred 
years,  viz.,  in  1735. 

However,  since  the  publication  of  the  first  edition  of 
this  Essay,  I  have  received  a  candid  and  excellent  letter 
on  the  subject  of  Moravian  episcopacy,  from  the  Rev. 
Benjamin  SeifFerth,  a  Moravian  minister  at  Kimbolton. 
From  this  I  am  happy  to  learn  that  the  Moravians  do  not 
hold  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right.  Mr.  Seifferth  refers 
in  proof  of  this,  among  other  authorities,  to  the  "  History  of 
the  United  Brethren,"  by  the  Rev.  John  Holmes  of  Ful- 
neck,  Yorkshire,  who  is  a  bishop  of  the  Moravian  church. 
At  pages  50  to  53,  vol.  i,  the  Rev  John  Holmes  gives  the 
following  account  of  the  matter  of  sending  to  this  Stephen, 
the  supposed  bishop  of  the  Waldensian  church,  for  episco- 
pal ordination  : — 

"  A  most  important  subject  of  deliberation,  both  at  their 
synods  and  at  other  times,  was  how  to  maintain  a  regular 
succession  of  ministers,  when  those  Avho  now  exercised 
the  ministry  among  them,  and  who  had  previously  been 
ordained  among  the  Calixtines,  were  dead.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  coming  to  a  final  decision  on  this  point,  a  synod 
was  convened  in  1467,  and  met  in  the  village  of  Lhota,  in 
the  house  of  a  person  of  the  name  of  Duchek.  Seventy 
persons  were  assembled  at  it,  consisting  of  ministers, 
noblemen,  scholars,  citizens,  and  peasants,  deputed  by  the 
several  congregations  of  the  Brethren  in  Moravia  and 
Bohemia. 

"  The  synod  was  opened  by  fasting,  prayer,  and  reading 
the  Scriptures.  After  much  deliberation,  they  came  to  a 
unanimous  resolution  to  follow  the  advice  of  Lupacius  and 
others,  and  to  elect  their  ministers  from  their  own  body. 
With  the  example  of  the  election  of  Matthias  before  them, 
(Acts  i,  15-26,)  who  was  appointed  by  lot,  they  conceived 
that  they  were  not  acting  contrary  to  Scripture  by  adopting 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        183 

the  same  mode,  and  they  reposed  implicit  confidence  in 
'the  Lord,  who  alone  hath  the  disposal  of  the  lot,  (Prov. 
xii,  33,)  that,  in  a  case  of  such  emergency  as  the  present, 
which  involved  such  important  consequences  to  their 
whole  church,  he  would  counsel  them  according  to  his 
will.  They  first  nominated  twenty  men,  from  among 
whom  nine  were  chosen,  being  in  their  opinion  duly  quali- 
fied for  the  office  of  the  ministry,  men  of  approved  piety  and 
irreproachable  conduct,  and  possessing  a  thorough  know- 
ledge of  divine  truth,  and  much  practical  experience.  Of 
this  number  they  determined  that  three  should  be  ap- 
pointed by  lot  for  the  ministerial  offiice.  Being  thus  agreed 
on  preliminaries,  they  prepared  twelve  slips  of  paper,  on 
three  of  which  they  wrote  the  word  est,  [this  is  the  man,] 
and  left  the  other  nine  blank.  All  the  twelve  slips  of  pa- 
per were  then  rolled  up,  put  into  a  small  vase,  and  mixed 
together. 

"  Hereupon  Gregory  addressed  the  assembly,  admonish- 
ing them  to  be  fully  resigned  to  the  direction  and  will  of 
God,  our  heavenly  Father,  to  whom  they  had  referred  the 
decision,  whom  of  these  nine  men  he  chose  to  become 
ambassadors  of  his  Son  in  the  church.  He  encouraged 
them  confidently  to  expect  that  God  would  hear  and  an- 
swer their  prayer.  After  this  they  repeated  their  suppli- 
cations to  the  Lord,  entreating  him  so  to  overrule  their 
present  proceedings,  that  the  affirmative  lot  inscribed  with 
the  word  est,  might  be  received  by  such  only  of  the  nine 
men,  previously  nominated,  as  he  himself  designed  to  ap- 
point to  the  ministry,  or  if  none  of  the  present  candidates 
were  approved  by  him,  he  would  cause  each  of  them  to 
receive  a  blank,  or  negative  lot.  Prayer  being  ended,  they 
called  in  a  little  boy,  directing  him  to  hand  one  of  the  slips 
of  paper  to  each  of  the  nine  men,  who  gave  them  unopened 
to  other  members  of  the  synod.  On  opening  the  papers 
it  was  found,  that  the  three  inscribed  with  est  had  been 
received  by  Matthias  of  Kunewalde,  Thomas  of  Presche- 
lauz,  and  Elias  of  Kreschenow.  The  whole  assembly 
now  joined  in  a  solemn  act  of  thanksgiving  to  God,  joyfully 
receiving  these  three  men  as  pastors  and  teachers,  and 
promising  them  obedience  by  giving  them  the  right  hand 
and  the  kiss  of  peace.  The  transaction  was  closed  with 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper. 


184        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

"  The  Brethren,  however,  soon  found  that  the  work  was, 
not  yet  complete.  In  their-  own  estimation,  the  appointment 
of  these  men  for  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  in  the  manner 
described,  was  sufficiently  valid ;  but  they  knew  it  required 
something  more  to  give  it  equal  sanction  with  the  religious 
public.  They  required  regular  ecclesiastical  ordination. 
In  order  to  discuss  this  important  subject,  another  synod 
was  convened  before  the  end  of  the  year.  In  this  assem- 
bly two  questions  were  principally  agitated. 

"  The  first  was,  whether  ordination  by  a  number  of  pres- 
byters was  equally  valid  loith  that  perfor?ned  by  a  bishop  T 
The  decision  of  the  synod  was  to  this  effect : — That  pres- 
byterian  ordination  was  consonant  to  ajyostolic  practice^ 
(1  Tim.  iv,  14,)  and  the  usage  of  the  primitive  church, 
which  might  be  proved  from  the  writings  of  the  primitive 
fathers ;  consequently  the  newly  elected  ministers  might 
be  ordained  by  those  now  exercising  the  sacred  functions 
of  the  gospel  among  them,  and  who  had  previously  been 
Calixtine  clergymen  in  priesfs  orders.  But,  as  for  many 
ages  no  ordination  had  been  deemed  valid  in  the  reigning 
church,  unless  performed  by  a  bishop,  they  resolved  to  use 
every  possible  means  for  obtaining  episcopal  ordination ; 
that  their  enemies  might  thus  be  deprived  of  every  pretext 
for  discrediting  the  ministry  among  them. 

"  This  decision  involved  the  second  question,  which 
was,  to  w^hat  regularly  organized  community  of  Christians 
the  synod  might  look  for  episcopal  ordination.  There 
could  in  reality  exist  but  one  opinion  on  this  subject.  For 
it  was  highly  improbable,  that  any  bishops  connected  with 
the  Romish  Church  would  transfer  this  privilege  to  the 
Brethren  ;  and  besides  this  church,  they  knew  only  one 
other  Christian  community,  to  which  they  might  apply  with 
any  hope  of  success.  This  was  the  Waldensian  church. 
Several  circumstances  encouraged  the  Brethren  to  apply  in 
this  quarter.  The  Waldenses  had  existed  for  a  long  period 
as  a  distinct  body  of  Christians,  they  constituted  a  regularly 
organized  society,  tracing  the  succession  of  their  bishops 
from  the  times  of  the  apostles  ;  they  had  on  a  former  oc- 
casion come  to  the  assistance  of  the  Brethren,  and  now  had 
several  congregations  in  Austria,  served  by  their  own 
bishops  and  ministers. 

"  Conformably  to  these  resolutions  of  the  synod,  they 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       185 

elected  three  of  their  ministers,  who  were  already  in 
priesVs  orders,  and  sent  them  to  the  Waldensian  bishop, 
Stephen.  Having  informed  him  of  the  object  of  their  visit, 
the  state  of  the  unity  of  the  Brethren,  and  the  transactions 
of  the  synod,  he  received  them  with  demonstrations  of  the 
most  cordial  joy ;  and  in  his  turn  related  the  leading  events 
in  the  history  of  the  Waldenses,  and  gave  them  an  account 
of  their  constitution,  and  the  succession  of  their  bishops. 
Hereupon  he  ordained  these  three  presbyters  bishops  of 
the  Brethren's  church,  with  imposition  of  hands,  being 
assisted  by  another  bishop,  and  in  presence  of  the 
elders.  Of  these  three  first  bishops  of  the  Brethren's 
church,  Melchior  Bradacius  is  the  only  one  whose  name 
has  been  handed  down  to  posterity.  He  had  from  the 
very  commencement  of  the  church  of  the  Brethren  ren- 
dered it  essential  service,  and  merited  an  honourable  dis- 
tinction. Of  the  other  two,  one  had  previously  exercised 
the  ministry  among  the  Waldenses,  and  the  other  in  the 
Romish  Church. 

"  Scarce  had  these  bishops  returned  to  their  brethren, 
when  it  was  resolved  to  convoke  another  synod.  This 
assembly  was  principally  occupied  in  amending  and  com- 
pleting their  ecclesiastical  constitution.  In  order  to  this, 
their  first  public  act  was  the  ordination  of  the  three  men, 
lately  appointed  by  lot  for  the  ministerial  office,  [to  be] 
presbyters  of  the  Brethren's  church.  One  of  them,  Mat- 
thias of  Kunewalde,  was,  before  the  close  of  the  synod, 
consecrated  bishop.  They  then  proceeded  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  ten  co-bishops,  or  conseniors,  elected  from  the 
body  of  presbyters.  No  doubtful  proof  this  of  the  increas- 
ing number  of  congregations  and  members,  in  connection 
with  the  Brethren's  church." 

The  reader  will  observe  several  discrepancies  between 
these  accounts. 

First,  as  to  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Brethren  about 
the  real  importance  of  episcopacy.  Comenius  says, — 
"  They  were  afraidih.^i  it  might  not  be  a  regular  ordination 
if  a  presbyter  should  create  a  presbyter,  and  not  a  bishop." 
Arvid  Gradin  says  they  were  solicitous  about  it.  Mr. 
Holmes  says  that  the  synod,  after  agitating  the  subject, 
decided  to  this  effect :  "  that  preshyterian  ordination  was 
consonant  to  apostolic  practice  and  the  primitive  church ;" 


186       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  that  they  adopted  episcopal  ordination  for  this  special, 
prudential  reason,  viz=,  "  that  their  enemies  might  thus  he 
deprived  of  every  pretext  for  discrediting  the  Quinistry  among 
themP 

Secondly,  Comenius,  seems  to  make  the  meeting  at  Lhota, 
in  which  Matthias  Kuhnwald,  &;c.,  were  elected,  to  be 
called  for  the  special  pm'pose  of  sending  these  three  men  to 
Stephen  for  episcopal  ordination  ;  so  does  Arvid  Gradin  : 
Bishop  Holmes  makes  this  meeting  appoint  these  three 
men  to  the  office  of  the  ministry  without  any  regard  to 
episcopal  ordination;  for  at  the  close  of  the  meeting, 
"  the  whole  assembly  joined  in  a  solemn  act  of  thanks- 
giving to  God,  joyfully  receiving  these  three  men  as  their 
pastors  and  teachers,  promising  them  obedience  by  giving 
them  the  right  hand  and  kiss  of  peace." 

Thirdly,  both  Comenius  and  Arvid  Gradin  state  that 
the  three  men  who  were  sent  to  Stephen,  and  consecrated 
bishops  by  him,  were  Matthias  Kuhnwald,  Thomas  Przel- 
aucius,  and  Elias  Krzenowius  :  but  Bishop  Holmes  says 
the  men  who  went  to  Stephen,  and  were  consecrated 
bishops,  were  not  the  same  as  those  mentioned  by  Come- 
nius and  Gradin  ;  but  that  one  of  their  names  was  Melchior 
Bradacius ;  and  that  the  names  of  the  other  two  have  not 
been  "  handed  down  to  posterity."  Then  another  synod, 
a  third,  is  convoked,  according  to  Bishop  Holmes,  and 
"  their  first  public  act  was  the  ordination  of  the  three 
men,  lately  appointed  hy  lot  for  the  ministerial  office,  pres- 
byters of  the  Brethren's  church.  One  of  them,  Matthias 
of  Kunewalde,  was,  before  the  close  of  the  synod,  conse- 
crated bishop." 

I  must  confess  that  such  very  striking  and  material  dis- 
crepancies, among  these  highly  respectable  historians  of 
the  Brethren's  church,  on  a  point  so  important,  makes  me 
suspect  that  there  is  very  little  of  perfectly  authentic  history 
on  the  subject  of  this  matter  about  Stephen  and  the  epis- 
copal ordination  and  succession.  Perrin,  who  possessed 
better  means  of  information  than  almost  any  other  historian 
of  the  Waldenses,  differs,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  from  all 
these  historians  :  according  to  him,  the  object  of  this,  the 
journey,  was  different ;  the  persons  sent  were  different, 
"  two  ministers  and  two  elders  ;"  the  transaction  between 
Stephen  and  those  persons  was  different :  what  they  did, 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        187 

was  not  to  give  a  succession  of  bishops,  but  "  in  token  of 
their  great  joy,  and  that  holy  society  and  correspondence, 
which  they  desired  to  hold  with  them,  they  blessed  them, 
praying  and  laying  their  hands  upon  them."  The  whole 
episcopal  colouring  of  this  affair  seems  to  have  arisen  from 
the  high  Church  imagination  of  Comenius :  Jablonsky 
gladly  laid  hold  of  it  to  propitiate  Archbishop  Wake,  of 
the  Church  of  England ;  and  hence  others  have  followed 
in  the  same  track. 

But  let  us  direct  our  inquiry  to  the  opinions  and  practice 
of  the  Waldenses. 

The  Moravians  profess  to  have  their  episcopacy  from 
Stephen,  whom  they  call  bishop  of  the  Waldenses,  in  1467. 
If  the  Waldenses  neither  taught  this  doctrine  of  high 
Church  bishops,  nor  maintained  such  an  order,  then,  of 
course,  they  could  not  give  what  they  possessed  not  them- 
selves ;  and  all  the  authority  derived  from  them  for  these 
pretensions  comes  to  nothing. 

The  doctrine  of  episcopacy  by  divine  right,  if  true,  is  a 
matter  of  the  very  first  importance  ;  all  who  held  it,  must 
have  felt  it  to  be  so.  Had  the  Waldenses  held  this,  they 
would  have  spoken  accordingly,  in  clear,  strong,  defined 
terms.  Thus  they  did  speak  on  all  subjects  they  believed 
to  be  of  great  magnitude.  It  may  then  be  taken  as  a  sure 
rule,  that,  while  the  subject  was  constantly  before  them, 
and  yet  they  never  say  clearly  and  strongly  that  the  order 
of  bishops,  as  having  superintendency  over  presbyters, 
was  by  divine  right ; — no,  nor  even  mention  such  a  thing 
as  bishops  among  them  ;  that  this  negative  evidence  is 
proof  they  did  not  hold  such  a  doctrine.  But  when  they 
say  much  to  the  contrary,  the  proof  strengthens  still  more. 
Besides,  where  were  the  Waldenses  to  get  the  notion? 
We  have  seen  that  the  Roman  church  never  held  it ;  the 
Greek  church  never  held  it ;  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach 
it ; — where  then  were  they  to  get  it  ?  He  that  affirms 
they  held  it,  must  prove  his  affirmation.  /  deny  it ;  let  it 
be  proved.     I  might  rest  the  matter  safely  here. 

The  early  and  authentic  writings  of  the  Waldenses  are 
very  few ;  yet  some  light  may  be  obtained  from  them. 
Let  the  reader  keep  one  thing  in  mind  ; — viz.,  that  suppose 
it  could  be  proved,  as  a  fact,  that  they  had  presbyters  and 
bishops,  still  this  would  not  prove  that  they  held  the  high 


188        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Church  notions  of  episcopacy  by  divine  right.  Jerome 
constantly  mentions  bishops  in  the  church,  in  his  day,  as  a 
fact,  but  positively  denies  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy. 
The  Church  of  Rome  had  the  distinction  between  bishops 
and  presbyters  as  a  fact,  but  never  maintained  the  divine 
right  of  episcopacy.  The  reformers  of  the  English 
Church  established  the  distinction  as  a  fact,  but  never 
maintained  the  divine  right.  By  overlooking  or  denying 
this  difference  between  the  fact  and  the  divine  right,  many 
showy  volumes  have  been  written  in  favour  of  episcopacy, 
which  are  nothing  but  splendid  sophisms  from  end  to  end. 
However,  /  doubt  the  fact  of  the  Waldenses  having  had 
bishops  in  their  earliest  history.  I  believe  it  cannot  be 
proved  from  any  of  their  documents,  written  before  the  time 
when  the  Moravians  profess  to  have  received  the  episco- 
pal order  from  them,  viz.,  1467.  Any  later  evidence  will 
be  inconclusive.  Much  to  the  contrary  certainly  appears 
in  their  writings  before  that  period,  as  the  following 
extracts  will  show.  They  speak  of  ministers  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner : — 

"  They  who  are  pastors  ought  to  preach  to  the  people, 
and  feed  them  often  with  divine  doctrine  ;  and  chastise  the 
sinners  with  discipline."  Written  A.  D.  1100.  "Feed- 
ing the  flock  of  God,  not  for  filthy  lucre  sake,  or  [nor]  as 
having  superiority  over  the  clergy."  "  As  touching 
orders,  we  ought  to  hold  that  order  is  called  the  power 
which  God  gives  to  man,  duly  to  administer  and  dispense 
unto  the  church  the  word  and  sacraments.  But  we  find 
nothing  in  the  Scriptures  touching  such  orders  as  they" 
(the  Papists)  "  pretend,  but  only  the  custom  of  the  church." 
Treatise  of  Antichrist,  A.  D.  1220.  "  All  other  ministerial 
things  may  be  reduced  to  the  aforesaid."  Ibid.  "  Those 
that  being  partakers  of  the  outward  ceremonies,  instituted 
ONLY  by  human  inventions,  do  believe  and  hope  to  partake 
of  the  reality  of  pastoral  cures  and  offices,  if  they  be 
shaved  or  shorn  like  lambs,  and  anointed  or  daubed  like 
walls,"  &c.  Having  described  the  ceremonies  then  used 
by  the  Romish  Church  in  confirmation,  they  say,  "  This  is 
that  which  they  call  the  sacrament  of  confirmation,  which 
we  find  not  instituted  either  by  Christ,  or  his  apostles — 
therefore  such  sacrament  is  not  found  needful  to  salvation  ; 
whereby  God  is  blasphemed,  and  which  was  introduced  by 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        1S9 

the  deviVs  instigation,  to  seduce  the  people,  and  to  deprive 
them  of  the  faith  of  the  church,  and  that  by  such  means 
they  might  be  induced  the  more  to  believe  the  ceremonies, 
and  the  necessity  of  the  bishops.""  Ibid.  Speaking  of  '''pas- 
tors,^'' imthout  any  distinction,  they  say,  "  We  pastors  do 
meet  together  once  every  year,  to  determine  of  our  affairs 
in  a  general  council.  Among  other  powers  and  abilities 
which  God  hath  given  to  his  servants,  he  hath  given  au- 
thority to  chuse  leaders  to  rule  the  people,  and  to  ordain 
elders  [presbyters^  in  their  charges  according  to  the  diver- 
sity of  the  work,  in  the  unity  of  Christ,  which  is  proved 
by  the  saying  of  the  apostle,  in  the  first  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  Titus  :  '  For  this  cause  I  have  left  thee  in  Crete, 
that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting, 
and  ordain  elders  [presbyters']  in  every  city  as  I  have  ap- 
pointed thee.'  When  any  of  us,  the  aforesaid  pastors, 
falls  into  any  gross  sins,  he  is  both  excommunicated  and 
prohibited  to  preach."  From  MSS.  several  hundred  years 
before  Luther  or  Calvin.  Here  it  is  remarkable,  that  their 
quotation  from  Titus  stops,  in  such  a  way,  as  not  to  intro- 
duce the  term  bishop,  occuring  in  the  next  verse.  Why 
was  this  ?  The  following  authorities  will  answer  this  ques- 
tion. Reinerus,  the  oldest  authority  on  their  tenets,  as  a 
historian,  (having  written  about  1250,)  says,  "  They  consi- 
dered prelates  to  be  but  scribes  and  Pharisees  ;  that  the 
pope  and  all  the  bishops  were  murderers,  because  of  the 
wars  they  waged ; — that  they  were  not  to  obey  the  bishops, 
but  God  only  ;  that  in  the  church  no  one  was  greater  than 
another ;  that  they  hated  the  very  name  of  prelate,  as 
pope,  bishop,^''  &c.  A  similar  statement  is  given  by  iEneas 
Sylvius  :  "  The  Roman  bishop,  and  all  bishops  are  equal. 
Among  priests,  or  ministers  of  the  gospel,  there  is  no  dif- 
ference. The  name  of  a  presbyter  does  not  signify  a 
dignity,  but  superior  merit."*  Mr.  Faber  quotes  Pilich- 
dorf,  saying,  "  They  rejected  the  consecration  of  bishops, 
priests,  churches,  altars,  &c."f 

Perrin  remarks,  that  "the  monk  Reinerus  reported 
many  things  concerning  the  vocation  of  the  pastors  of  the 
Waldenses  which  are  mere  fictions :  as  that  they  had  a 
greater  bishop  and  two  followers,  whom  he  called  the  elder 

*  Catalog.  Test.  Veritat.,  vol.  ii. 

t  Faber's  Vallenses,  p.  418.     Lend.,  1838. 


190       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

son,  and  tlie  younger,  and  a  deacon  ;  that  he  laid  his  hands 
upon  others  with  a  sovereign  authority,  and  sent  them  where 
he  thought  good,  like  a  'popeP 

"  Against  these  impostures,  here  follows  what  is  found 
in  their  writings,  concerning  the  vocation  of  their  pastors." 
He  then  gives  the  same  account  from  their  own  writings  as 
we  have  given  in  the  text ;  but  no  account  of  an  order  of 
bishops  is  found  in  them.  There  is  no  distinction  among 
them  but  what  age,  or  wisdom,  or  piety,  might  confer. 

Leger  gives  the  monk  Reiner's  account  of  this  matter 
a  little  differently.  He  introduces  him  speaking  of  the 
barbes  or  pastors,  saying,  "  that  they  had  always  among 
them  some  chief  pastor,  endowed  with  the  authority"^  of  a 
bishop,  with  two  coadjutors,  one  of  whom  he  called  his 
eldest  son,  and  the  other  his  younger'^]  This  is  certainly 
more  consistent  with  the  other  statements  of  Reiner.  For 
how  could  he  say  they  had  a  greater  bishop,  when  he  says 
they  reprobated  the  very  name  of  bishops?  But  he  might 
say  that  some  chief  pastor  was  endowed  with  the  authority 
of  a  bishop,  &c.  Their  own  writings  say,  "  The  last  re- 
ceived pastors  must  do  nothing  without  the  license  of  their 
seniors :  as  also  those  that  are  first  are  to  undertake  no- 
thing without  the  approbation  of  their  companions,  that 

*  Mr.  Faber,  referring  to  Gilly's  Excurs.  to  Piedmont,  p.  73,  says, 
"  The  venerable  Peyrani,  when  asked  by  Dr.  Gilly,  in  the  year  1823, 
whether,  in  the  Vaudois  church,  there  had  not  formerly  been  bishops 
properly  so  called,  readily  answered,  *  Yes  :  and  I  should  now  be  styled 
bishop,  for  my  office  is  virtually  episcopal,  but  it  would  be  absurd  to 
retain  the  empty  title,  when  we  are  too  poor  to  support  the  dignity : 
and  have  little  jurisdiction  save  that  which  is  voluntarily  submitted  to 
among  ourselves  :  the  term  moderator  is,  therefore,  now  in  use  with  us, 
as  being  more  consistent  with  our  humiliation.''  "  Now,  if  riches  and 
worldly  dignities  are  necessaiy  to  bishops  properly  such,  then  there 
were  none  such  in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  church,  nor  of  the  Waldenses 
either :  the  same  remark  would  apply  to  any  jurisdiction  with  civil 
power  to  coerce:  neither  the  primitive  church,  nor  the  ancient  Wal- 
denses, knew  any  thing  about  such  jurisdiction.  If  the  term  bishop  is 
an  "  empty  title"  without  these,  something  very  different  from  primitive 
episcopacy  must  be  meant  by  it.  "  But,"  says  Peyrani,  "  a  moderator 
is  virtually  a  bishop ;"  yes,  as  much  so  as  a  Lutheran  superintendent 
or  president.  If  this  is  what  is  meant  by  being  "  properly"  a  bishop, 
then  many  writers  on  these  subjects  express  themselves  very  impro- 
perly. 

t  See  Peyran's  Historical  Defence  of  the  Waldenses.  Lond.,  1826, 
Appendix,  pp.  491,  492. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       191 

every  thing  may  be  done  among  us  in  order.  We  pastors 
do  meet  together  once  every  year  to  determine  of  our 
affairs  in  a  general  council,"*  This  is  the  authority  the 
seniors  had.  Such  have  the  Lutheran  and  Wesleyan 
Methodist  superintendents.  Such  had  the  bishops  in  the 
days  of  Cyprian.  Yet  the  Waldenses  do  not  appear  to 
have  had  the  name  of  bishop.  They  are  said  to  have 
HATED  THE  VERY  NAME  of  bishop.  Much  less,  therefore, 
had  they  the  doctrine  of  divine  right.  Indeed  this  account 
of  Reiner's  about  a  bishop  with  two  coadjutors,  an  elder 
son  and  a  younger  son,  seems  not  properly  to  be  spoken  of 
the  Waldenses  at  all,  but  only  of  those  who  were  properly 
Paulicians.     See  Mr.  Faber's  Vallenses,  pp.  564,  565. 

Hence  it  would  appear  that  the  Waldenses  had  no  such 
name  as  bishop  for  any  of  their  pastors,  but  that,  according 
to  the  earliest  historians  who  knew  them  best,  "they 
reprobated  the  very  name  of  bishops,"  Their  pastors  fed 
the  flock,  ruled  the  flock,  and  ordained  others  to  the  minis- 
try of  the  word.  The  Waldenses,  then,  had  no  doctrine 
of  the  divine  right  of  bishops  to  govern  the  church,  and  to 
have  the  sole  right  of  superintending  and  ordaining  other 
ministers.  The  pretence  of  deriving  the  divine  right  of 
episcopacy  through  the  Waldenses  is,  in  truth,  without  any 
solid  foundation  whatsoever. 

The  Moravian  bishops  have  no  superintendency  by  the 
power  of  their  order  over  all  other  ministers  ;  they  are 
ordained  by  the  authority  of  the  elders  or  presbyters  ;  and 
are  subject  to  the  conference  of  presbyters.  They,  by  the 
authority  of  the  presbyters,  ordain  other  ministers.  This 
office  of  ordaining  ministers  is  their  only  important  differ- 
ence from  presbyters  ;  and  as  they  do  it  by  the  authority 
of  the  presbyters,  it  amounts  to  nothing  but  a  mere  eccle- 
siastical arrangement. 

Bishop  Holmes  says,  (p.  25,)  "  The  writings  of  Wick- 
liflfe  were  the  means  used  by  God  for  illuminating  the  mind 
of  Huss.  Wickliffe  himself,  on  the  subject  of  equality  and 
of  gospel  ministers,  eYidenily  followed  the  writings  of  the 
ancient  Waldenses,  for  he  sometimes  uses  their  very  words. 
Now  Wickliffe  boldly  affirms  all  gospel  ministers  to  be 
equal  by  divine  right.  Huss  followed  him  in  this,  and 
maintained  the  same  point,  as  may  be  seen  in  Fox's  Acts 
*  Perrin,  part  ii,  b.  i,  chap.  10, 


192       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  Monuments.*  He  is  charged  with  maintaining,  and 
doth  not  deny  it,  that  he  saith,  '  All  priests  are  of  like 
power ;  and  affirmeth,  that  the  reservations  of  the  pope's 
casualties,  the  ordering  [ordaining]  of  bishops,  and  the 
consecration  of  priests,  were  invented  only  for  covetous- 
ness.'  The  Waldenses  taught  Wickliffe ;  Wickliffe  taught 
Huss :  they  all  maintained  equality,  hy  divine  right,  of  all 
gospel  ministers^'' 

All  the  reformers  viewed  the  Bohemian  Brethren's  church 
government  in  this  light. 

The  English  reformers  did.  A  number  of  the  Bohe- 
mians fled  out  of  Germany  into  England  in  the  time  of 
Edward  VI.  They  were  incorporated,  as  a  church,  under 
John  Alasco.  Now  the  later  Moravians  reckon  John 
Alasco  as  one  of  their  bishops  at  that  time.  Let  us  hear 
Bishop  Burnet's  history  of  this  matter :  "  This  summer, 
John  Alasco,  v^^ith  a  congregation  of  Germans  that  fled 
from  their  country  upon  the  persecution  raised  there,  for 
not  receiving  the  interim,  was  allowed  to  hold  his  assembly 
at  St.  Austin's,  in  London.  The  congregation  was  erected 
into  a  corporation.  John  Alasco  was  to  be  superintendent, 
and  there  were  four  other  ministers  associated  with  him. 
There  were  also  three  hundred  and  eighty  of  the  congre- 
gation made  denizens  of  England,  as  appears  by  the  re- 
cords of  their  patents,"!  In  the  king's  letters  patent  for 
their  incorporation,  the  following  is  the  style  : — "  De  uno 
superintendente  et  quatuor  verbi  ministris  erigimus,  creamus, 
ordinamus,  etfundamus,^''  &c. — "We  erect,  create,  ordain, 
and  found  this  church,  under  one  superintendent  and  four 
ministers  of  the  word."  Would  Alasco,  who  wanted  neither 
talents  nor  courage  to  defend  himself,  have  submitted  to 
the  degradation  (as  a  thorough  Episcopalian  would  have 
supposed  it)  of  being  stripped  of  his  dignity  in  a  solemn 
deed  of  incorporation,  and  made  a  mere  superintendent  ? 
Would  not  the  same  reasoning  hold  as  to  the  opinion  of 
the  other  ministers,  and  the  whole  church,  upon  the  sub- 
ject ?  The  word  superintendent  is  repeated  ten  times  over 
in  these  documents  ;  but  never  the  word  bishop  as  applied 
to  Alasco,  or  to  any  minister  of  the  Bohemian  church. 

The  Rev.  Benjamin  Seiflerth,  in  the  letter  before  men- 
tioned, speaking  of  John  Alasco,  thinks  I  am  in  an  error 

*  Vol.  i,  p.  791,  &c.,  ed.  1641,  folio.  t  Vol.  ii,  part  i. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION,        193 

in  supposing  that  the  latter  Moravian  historians  reckon 
him  as  one  of  their  bishops.  He  says,  "  Count  Zinzen- 
dorf,  indeed,  fell  into  this  error ;  but  I  believe  it  has  been 
acknowledged  to  be  an  error.  Holmes  is  not  chargeable 
with  it ;  nor,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  are  any  of  our  writers  : 
and  Comenius,  and  especially  Regenvolscius,  show  that 
a  Lasco  was  not  even  a  member  of  the  Brethren's  church, 
though  a  warm  friend  to  it."  I  have  given  Mr.  SeifFerth's 
statement.  Now  it  seems  Count  Zinzendorf  believed 
a  Lasco,  or  Alasco,  belonged  to  the  Moravians  ;  and  the 
highly  authoritative  work  above  quoted,  taken  from  the 
Vouchers  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons,  and  indeed 
to  both  houses  of  parliament,  considers  the  transaction  in 
Edward's  time  to  have  been  with  the  Brethren's  church, 
and  of  course  with  a  Lasco  as  its  chief  minister.  See 
p.  134  of  that  work.  And,  in  a  note  on  the  same  page, 
they  speak  of  "  one  of  our  [Moravian]  bishops  having  been 
in  the  commission  for  reforming  ecclesiastical  laws  in 
England.  We  cannot  forbear  giving  the  honoured  reader 
two  of  the  most  remarkable  passages  of  our  said  Bishop 
John  a  Lasco's  Preface  to  the  Liturg}^  for  his  Congrega- 
tion at  Austin  Friars,"  in  1550 ;  a  similar  statement,  as  to 
his  being  a  Moravian  minister,  is  made  in  a  note  at  p.  108 
— "  This  noble  prelate  of  ours."  It  is  not  for  me  to  decide 
who  is  right  in  this  matter. 

It  would  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  Lutheran  church 
viewed  this  Bohemian  episcopacy  as  a  mere  ecclesiastical 
arrangement,  amounting  in  substance  to  nothing  more  than 
the  same  arrangement  among  themselves ;  sometimes  de- 
nominating the  individual  a  superintendent,  as  in  Germany, 
generally ;  and  sometimes  a  bishop,  or  even  archbishop, 
as  in  Sweden  and  Denmark.  All  the  Swiss  and  Geneva 
reformers  prove  this  by  expressing  their  approbation  of  the 
church  discipline  of  the  Bohemians  and  Waldenses ;  for 
every  body  knows  that  these  reformers  determinately  main- 
tained the  equality  by  divine  right  of  all  gospel  ministers. 

Indeed  the  story  about  that  Stephen,  who,  the  Moravians 
say,  conveyed  to  them  this  episcopal  succession,  is  very 
differently  related  by  Perrin,  one  of  the  earliest  of  the 
modern  historians  of  the  Waldenses.  He  had  more  au- 
thentic documents  connected  with  their  ancient  history  than 
any  later  historian  ever  possessed.      He  says,  "  About 

9 


194       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

1467,  the  Hussites,  reforming  and  separating  their  churches 
from  the  Church  of  Rome,  understood  that  there  were 
some  churches  of  the  ancient  Waldenses  in  Austria,  lying 
Upon  the  frontiers  of  Bohemia,  in  which  there  were  great 
and  learned  men  ordained,  and  appointed  to  be  pastors  ; 
and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  flourished  in  its  full 
force  and  vigour  among  them :  then  that  they  might  he 
informed  of  the  truth  thereof,  they  sent  two  of  their  ministers 
with  two  elders,  giving  them  in  charge  to  inquire  into,  and 
know  what  those  flocks  or  congregations  were ;  for  what 
reason  they  had  separated  themselves  from  the  Church  of 
Rome  ;  their  principles  and  progress  ;  and  also  to  discover 
and  make  known  unto  them  the  beginning  of  their  own 
conduct  in  Bohemia,  and  to  acquaint  them  with  the  cause 
and  reason  of  their  separation  and  dissension  from  the 
Romish  Church. 

"  These  men  being  arrived  thither,  and  having  found 
out  those  Waldensian  churches,  after  a  diligent  and  care- 
ful search  after  them,  they  told  them,  that  they  did  nothing 
but  what  was  agreeable  to  the  ordinances  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of  his  apostles,  confining 
themselves  wholly  to  the  institution  of  the  Son  of  God  in 
the  matter  of  the  sacrament. 

"  It  was  a  matter  of  great  joy  and  satisfaction  to  the 
Waldenses,  to  understand,  that  a  great  number  of  people 
in  Bohemia  had  advanced  the  glory  of  God,  by  casting  off 
the  corruptions  and  idolatries  of  the  Roman  Church,  and 
exhorting  them  in  God's  name  to  continue  and  carry  on 
that  work  which  they  had  so  well  begun,  for  the  know- 
ledge and  maintenance  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  good  order  and  discipline  among  them  ;  in  token 
of  their  great  joy,  and  that  holy  society  and  correspondence 
which  they  desired  to  hold  with  them,  they  blessed  them, 
praying  and  laying  their  hands  upon  them^*  And  then, 
having  mentioned  the  burning  of  a  great  number  of  the 
Waldenses  in  a  violent  persecution,  he  says,  "  Among 
others,  the  history  gives  us  an  account  of  oxe  Stephen, 
AN  ELDERLY  MAN,  who  being  buHit  there,"  (at  Vienna,) 
"  confirmed  many  hy  his  constancy.''^  The  translation  I 
quote  is  by  "  A  lover  of  our  Protestant  Establishment, 
both  in  church  and  state."     Perhaps  "one  Stephen,  an 

*  Perrin's  History  of  the  Old  Waldenses,  part  ii,  b.  ii,  chap.  10. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        195 

elderly  man,"  should  have  been  translated,  "  one  Stephen^ 
a  presbyter  or  elders  This  is  the  very  Stephen  of  whom 
the  Moravians  speak  as  conveying  the  episcopal  succession 
to  them.  Hence  they  sometimes  speak  about  the  Church 
of  England  as  "  their  only  episcopal  sister.''''  The  mission- 
ary labours  of  the  Brethren  we  would  duly  estimate  ;  much 
may  be  said  for  their  simple  manners  and  piety ;  yet  all 
such  representations  as  tend  to  canfine  a  gospel  ministry 
and  gospel  ordinances  to  any  episcopal  succession  schemes 
are  to  be  suspected.  Their  tendency  is  to  bind  the  bless- 
ings of  Christianity  by  ordinances  that  God  never  made. 
No  order  of  men  ought  to  be  encouraged  to  assume  such 
powers.  Simplicity  may  be  frequently  beguiled  by  them, 
and  may  look  upon  them  as  harmless  ;  but  those  who  study 
the  subject  in  the  light  of  history,  and  the  knowledge  of 
human  nature,  will  think  very  differently. 

As  to  apostolical  succession,  Reiner  testifies  that  the 
Waldenses  maintained,  "  that  those  only  are  the  successors 
of  the  APOSTLES  who  ifnitate  their  lives.  Liferring  from 
thence,  saith  he,  that  the  pope,  the  bishops,  and  clergy, 
who  enjoy  the  riches  of  this  world,  and  seek  after  them, 
do  not  follow  the  lives  of  the  apostles,  and  therefore  are 
not  the  true  guides  of  the  church ;  it  having  never  been 
the  design  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  commit  his  chaste 
and  well-beloved  spouse  to  those  who  would  rather  prosti- 
tute it  by  their  wicked  examples  and  works,  than  preserve 
it  in  the  same  purity  in  which  they  received  it  at  the  be- 
ginning, a  virgin  chaste  and  without  spot.''''  This  is  the 
true  view  of  the  apostolical  succession.  The  reformers 
contended  for  this.  We  rejoice  to  believe  that  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  in  the  Moravian  church  have  this  succes- 
sion;  but  most  eminently  so  their  missionaries,  and  all 
other  devoted  missionaries  to  the  heathen.  May  every 
church  zealously  contend  for  this  succession,  and  may  their 
labours  be  crowned  with  apostolical  success  in  the  con- 
version of  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  from  idols  to 
the  living  God ! 

The  matter  of  the  Scotch  church,  and  all  the  dissenting 
churches,  as  maintaining  the  identity  by  divine  right  of  all 
ministers,  is  denied  by  none,  and  therefore  needs  no 
proof. 

The  reader  will  have  long  since  perceived  that  the  main 


196       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

end  of  this  argument  upon  the  identity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, as  one  and  the  same  office,  is  to  show  that  presby- 
ters have  EQUALLY  as  much  divine  authority  to  ordain 
others  to  the  Christian  ministry  as  bishops  have.  Another 
prerogative,  however,  is  generally  claimed  for  bishops, 
viz.,  that  of  CONFIRMATION.  We  have  taken  but  little 
notice  of  this ;  yet  it  would  hardly  suit  the  design  of  this 
Essay  wholly  to  omit  it.  We  account  it  not  of  sufficient 
importance  for  lengthened  remark  or  discussion  in  a  sepa- 
rate section :  a  brief  notice  of  it  here,  therefore,  by  way 
of  episode,  may  suffice.  We  may  comprise  all  that  is 
necessary  to  be  said  on  the  subject  in  two  particulars ; 
first,  as  to  the  thing  itself ;  and  secondly,  as  to  the  minis- 
ter who  may  perform  it. 

First,  as  to  the  thing  itself  Those  illustrious  witnesses 
to  the  truth  against  Popery,  the  Waldenses,  as  we  have 
seen,  speaking  on  this  subject,  say,  "  This  is  that  which 
they  call  confirmation,  which  we  find  not  instituted  either 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles  ;  therefore  such  sacrament  is  not 
found  needful  to  salvation ;  whereby  God  is  blasphemed, 
and  which  was  introduced  by  the  devil's  instigation,  to 
seduce  the  people,  and  to  deprive  them  of  the  faith  of  the 
church,  and  that  by  such  means  they  might  be  induced  the 
more  to  believe  the  ceremonies,  and  the  necessity  of 
bishops"  Wickliffe  also  says,  " It  does  not  appear  that 
this  sacrament  should  be  reserved  to  a  Cesarean  prelacy  ; 
that  it  would  be  more  devout  and  more  conformable  to 
Scripture  language,  to  deny  that  the  bishops  give  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  confirm  the  giving  of  it ;  and  that  it  therefore 
seems  to  some,  that  the  brief  and  trivial  confirmation  of 
the  prelates,  and  the  ceremonies  added  to  it  for  the  sake 
of  pomp,  were  introduced  at  the  suggestion  of  Satan,  that 
the  people  may  be  deceived  as  to  the  faith  of  the  church, 
and  that  the  state  and  necessity  of  bishops  may  be  more 
acknowledged."*  Melancthon  observes,  "The  rite  of 
confirmation,  as  retained  by  bishops,  is  altogether  an  idle 
ceremony :  but  an  examination  of  youth,  in  order  to  a  pro- 
fession of  their  faith,  with  public  prayer  for  the  pious  part 
of  them,  would  be  useful,  and  the  prayer  would  not  be  in 
vain."\     Ravanel,  whose  work  had  the  approbation  of  the 

*  Vaughan's  Life  of  Wickliffe,  vol.  ii,  p.  308,  sec.  ed.,  1831. 
t  Loci  Communes,  de  Confirmatione. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        197 

French  reformed  church,  says,  "The  wrangling  Popish 
divines  maintain  the  dignity  and  efficacy  of  confirmation 
ABOVE  the  sacrament  of  baptism  itself;  for  they  assert  that 
it  is  not  lawful  for  any  one  but  a  bishop  to  confer  it,  while 
they  concede  that  presbyters  can  administer  baptism  :  and 
they  impiously  teach  that  confirmation  is  a  certain  perfecting- 
and  consummating  oi  baptism,  as  if  those  were  to  be  counted 
only  half  Christians  who  are  baptized  only,  and  not  con- 
firmed ;  whereas  the  apostle  testifies  that  we  put  on  Christ 
in  baptism."*  Bishop  Taylor  boldly  declares,  that,  until 
we  are  confirmed,  we  are  imperfect  Christians ;  such, 
"  without  a  miracle,  are  not  perfect  Christians :"  that  is, 
not  really  Christians  at  all.  Calvin  has  some  admirable 
remarks  upon  the  subject,  Inst.,  lib.  iv,  c.  19.  He  ap- 
proves of  a  similar  procedure  to  that  mentioned  above  by 
Melancthon.  He  exposes  the  absurdity  and  impiety  of 
taking  the  act  of  the  apostles  in  conferring  the  visible  and 
MIRACULOUS  GIFTS  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  laying  on  of 
their  hands  upon  the  baptized,  as  a  ground  for  the  pretence 
of  bishops  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  laying  on  of 
THEIR  hands  in  confirmation.  He  calls  them  "  apes  of  the 
apostles."  He  shows  that  by  this  kind  of  pretence  they 
invalidate  baptism  itself  thus  making  void  the  command- 
ments of  God  by  the  traditions  of  men,  and  exclaims,  "  O 
the  iniquity  of  this  proceeding !"  He  then  offers  ironically 
an  improved  definition  of  confirmation,  viz.,  that  it  is  "  a 
marked  disgrace  to  baptism,  which  obscures  the  use  of 
baptism,  yea,  abolishes  it :  the  devil's  false  promise,  to 
draw  us  away  from  the  true  promises  of  God."  The  rite 
of  confirmation  in  the  English  Church  differs  from  the 
Popish  one  in  that  it  is  not  called  a  sacrament ;  and  some 
ceremonies  are  laid  aside  :  in  all  other  respects  it  is  equally 
unscriptural  in  its  pretences,  and  dangerous  in  its  conse- 
quences. To  establish  a  claim  to  it  as  a  prerogative  of 
bishops,  in  imitation  of  the  apostles,  they,  the  bishops, 
must  confer  the  gift  of  miracles.  The  latter  they  cannot 
do :  the  claim,  therefore,  exposes  Christianity  itself  to  con- 
tempt.  This  claim  ought  to  be  given  up.  Bishop  Taylor, 
speaking  of  the  Popish  doctrine  of  extreme  unction,  says, 
"  When  the  miraculous  healing  ceased,  then  they  were  not 
Catholics,  but  heretics,  that  did  transfer  it  to  the  use  of 
*  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  sub  voce. 


198        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

dying  persons."  By  this  rule  lie  would  convict  the  Church 
of  England  of  heresy  in  the  use  of  confirmation.  It  doubt- 
less imbodies  serious  errors ;  though  we  do  not  say  it 
constitutes  heresy.  Every  Christian  has  a  right  to  repro- 
bate it  as  a  public  injury  to  religion.  It  is  degrading  also 
to  all  other  ministers,  as  implying  that  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  as  administered  by  them,  is  imperfect.  It  dero- 
gates from  the  sacrament  of  baptism  itself.*  Besides, 
there  is  the  solemn  declaration  made  by  the  bishop,  in 
administering  the  rite  of  confirmation,  that  the  "  Almighty 
and  everlasting  God  has  given  forgiveness  of  all 
THEIR  sins" — all  their  actual  personal  sins — to  the  multi- 
tudes of  young  persons  brought  to  be  confirmed,  many  of 
whom  are  plainly  ungodly  persons,  and  who  had  never 
been  seen  by  the  bishop  before.  This  is  enough  to  make 
any  pious  person  tremble.  It  is  a  daring  presumption, 
only  equalled  by  the  height  of  Popery  itself.  The  great 
danger  to  souls  is,  that  multitudes  believe  it.  I  pity  many 
good  men  who  are  entangled  with  these  things.  The  re- 
formers of  the  English  Church  might  find  some  excuse  for 
retaining  them,  because  it  was  difficult  in  the  darkness  of 
those  times  to  see  the  truth  in  all  things ;  but  there  can 
be  no  excuse  at  this  day  for  retaining  them.  Every  Pro- 
testant ought  to  protest  against  these  corruptions  of  Chris- 
tianity. Melancthon's  view  contains  all  that  the  Scrip- 
tures warrant. 

Secondly,  let  us  consider  who  is  the  minister  to  whom 
the  administering  of  this  rite  belongs.  Indeed,  as  there 
is  no  divine  authority  for  the  thing  itself,  of  course  there  is 
no  divine  regulation  about  the  minister.  Bishop  Burnet 
grants,  that  there  is  "  no  express  institution  of  it,  neither 
by  Christ  nor  his  apostles  ;  no  rule  given  to  practise  it."t 

*  Bishop  Heber,  in  his  Life  of  Bishop  Taylor,  speaking  of  his  work 
on  Confirmation,  says,  "  There  is,  indeed,  a  dangerous  consequence 
attendant  on  both  Taylor's  arguments,  that,  by  limiting  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  confirmation,  he  makes  baptism,  taken  by  itself,  of 
NONE  EFFECT,  or,  at  most,  of  no  further  effect  than  as  a  decent  and 
necessary  introduction  to  that  which  would  be,  on  this  hypothesis,  the 
main  and  distinctive  consignation  of  a  Christian."  King  James  I.,  at 
the  Hampton  Court  conference,  declared  his  opinion,  "  that  arguing  a 
confirmation  of  baptism,  as  if  this  sacrament  without  it  were  of  no 
validity,  is  plainly  blasphemous." 

t  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  art.  25. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        199 

The  whole  is  merely  a  matter  of  human  arrangement.  How- 
ever, Bishop  Taylor  dashes  off  the  affirmation,  that  "  bishops 
were  always,  and  the  only  ministers  of  conjirmation.''^  It 
is  humiliating  to  find  this  splendid  writer  frequently  so 
reckless  in  assertion,  and  so  careless  of  proof.  Bishop 
Heber  candidly  acknowledges,  in  his  admirable  Life  of 
Taylor,  that  "  he  was  any  thing  rather  than  a  critical  in- 
quirer into  facts  (however  strange)  of  history  or  of  philo- 
sophy. If  such  alleged  facts  suited  his  purpose.,  he  re- 
ceived them  without  examination.,  and  retailed  them  without 
scruple.'"  Vol.  ii,  p.  179,  12mo.  Now,  to  overturn  for  ever, 
and  from  the  foundation,  his  rash  affirmation,  and  all  similar 
affirmations,  we  have  only  to  bring  before  the  reader  the 
indisputable  fact,  that  in  the  Greek  church  it  never  was 
confined  to  the  bishops,  but  always  was,  and  is  to  the  pre- 
sent day,  administered  by  presbyters  and  bishops  promis- 
cuously. There  is  no  satisfactory  proof,  indeed,  that  it 
existed  at  all  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  after  the 
apostles'  time,  in  the  sense  and  manner  in  which  it  is  now 
used  in  the  Church  of  England.  As  the  concluding  part 
of  baptism ;  and  as  a  way  of  confirming  the  baptism  of 
heretics,  it  somewhat  early  came  into  the  church,  as  may 
be  seen  in  Cyprian,  epist.  72  and  76,  ed.  Pamel. ;  in  Sui- 
cer's  Thesaurus,  vol.  ii,  col.  1534,  &c.,  ed.  1682;  and 
Calderwood's  Altare  Damascenum,  p.  257,  &c.,  ed.  1708. 
"  The  invention,^''  says  Bishop  Burnet,  art.  25,  "  that  was 
afterward  found  out,  by  which  the  bishop  was  held  to  be 
the  only  minister  of  confirmation,  even  though  presbyters 
were  suffered  to  confirm,  was  a  piece  of  superstition  without 
any  colour  from  Scripture. — In  the  Latin  church,  Jerome 
tells  us,  that  in  his  time  bishops  only  confirmed ;  though 
he  makes  the  reason  of  this  to  be  rather  for  doing  to  them 
honour,  than  from  any  necessity  of  law. — It  is  said  by 
Hilary,  that  in  Eg}^pt  the  presbyters  did  confirm  in  the 
bishop's  absence  :  so  that  custom  grevn  to  be  the  universal 
practice  of  the  Greek  church."  The  learned  Mr.  Smith,  in 
his  work  on  the  "  Present  State  of  the  Greek  Church," 
tells  us,  that  "  the  administration  of  confirmation  is  conceded 
to  bishops  and  presbyters  promiscuously''^  in  the  present 
Greek  church:  p.  112,  ed.  sec,  1678.  The  Church  of 
Rome,  as  an  ordinary  rule,  confines  it  to  bishops,  but  has 
always  granted  that  presbyters,  by  the  permission  of  the 


200       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

church,  were  capable  of  administering  confirmation ;  and 
presbyters  have  actually  and  frequently  administered  it  in 
that  church.*  So  much  for  the  truth  of  Bishop  Taylor's 
rash  and  reckless  affirmation,  that  "  bishops  were  always, 
and  the  only  ministers  of  confirmation." 

There  is  no  divine  authority  for  the  thing :  the  present 
mode  of  administering  it  is  full  of  presumption  and  danger. 
In  a  reformed  state  of  the  matter,  presbyters  might,  by  the 
will  of  the  church,  be  equally  as  efficient  administrators 
of  it  as  bishops.  To  claim  it  as  a  divine  prerogative  of 
bishops,  is  like  all  the  other  assumptions  of  this  scheme — 
an  utterly  baseless  assumption'. 

Here,  then,  is  abundant  proof  of  the  shallowness  of  the 
pretence  of  some  who  seem  to  boast  as  though  almost  all 
the  authority  of  the  Christian  church  was  on  the  side  of 
their  high  Church  claims  for  episcopal  succession.  The 
truth  is,  we  see,  that  no  Christian  church  ever  main- 
tained IT  ;  MANY  have  expressly  negatived  these  claims ; 
none  ever  affirmed  them. 

The  maintaining  of  the  true  Scriptural  liberty  of  every 
section  of  the  Christian  church  is  a  matter  of  great  import- 
ance to  Christianity  itself,  and  to  the  peace  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  at  large.  While  no  Scriptural  principles  are 
violated,  and  while  the  morals  of  the  church  are  not  cor- 
rupted, each  church  has  the  sacred  right  of  adopting  what 
form  of  government  it  deems  the  best.  No  section  of  the 
Christian  church  has  any  authority,  beyond  these  princi- 
ples, to  bind  the  practices  of  another  church.  Every  at- 
tempt to  do  this  is  essentially  Popery ;  it  is  antichrist, 
setting  up  his  throne  in  the  church  above  the  throne  of 
God  himself.  Episcopacy,  if  administered  with  humility , 
and  in  a  pacific  spirit,  may,  on  these  principles  of  Chris- 
tian truth,  be  adopted  and  justified ;  but,  if  its  advocates 
become  proud  and  insolent  to  those  churches  who  adopt  it 
not ;  if  they  insult  the  ministers,  and  endeavour  to  disturb 
the  minds  of  the  private  members  of  those  churches  by 
unscriptural  declamation  and  denunciation  against  the  va- 
lidity of  their  ordinances  ;  if  they  proudly  arrogate  to  them- 
selves the  sole  right  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel :  in  such  a  case,  they  commence  a  spiritual  usurpa- 

*  See  the  Canon  Law,  distinction  95,  and  Lancelot's  Notes  on  the 
same. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       201 

tion  and  tyranny  in  the  church  of  God.  To  overturn  such 
a  system  is  to  defend  the  gospel ;  and  its  overthrow  will 
promote  the  peace  of  the  whole  Christian  world. 


SECTION  IX. 

THE  GREATEST  DIVINES  OF  ALL  AGES  SHOWN  TO  BE 
AGAINST  THESE  EXCLUSIVE  CLAIMS  FOR  THE  DIVINE 
RIGHT   OF   BISHOPS. 

Of  course  this  point  has  been  anticipated  in  the  pre- 
ceding sections ;  for  while  it  has  been  shown  that  no 
church  ever  affirmed  this  order  of  bishops  by  divine  right, 
but  that  all  churches  have  substantially  negatived  it,  the 
doctrine  of  these  churches  proves  the  opinion  of  the 
greatest  divines  of  all  ages  to  have  been  against  the  tenet 
of  bishops  being  by  divine  right  an  order  distinct  from, 
and  superior  to,  presbyters ;  having  government  over  mi- 
nisters as  well  as  over  people ;  and  the  sole  power  and 
authority  of  ordaining  other  ministers  in  the  church  of  God. 
But  besides  their  testimony  in  the  voice  of  their  different 
churches,  many  of  them  have  spoken  so  expressly  upon 
the  subject,  that  it  may  be  worth  while  to  hear  them  deliver 
their  own  decisions. 

First,  The  Christian  Fathers. — We  have  treated 
this  subject  in  a  former  section.  We  shall  give  the  learned 
Stillingfleet's  opinion  in  connection  with  this  point.  "  I 
believe,"  says  he,  "  upon  the  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's 
judgment  will  prove  true,  that  Hieron,  Austin,  Ambrose, 
Sedulius,  Primasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theo- 
phylact,  were  all  of  Aerius's  judgment,  as  to  the  identity 
of  both  name  and  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  in  the 
primitive  church ;  but  here  lay  the  difference,  Aerius  from 
thence  proceeded  to  separation  from  the  bishops  and  their 
churches,  because  they  were  bishops."* 

Wickliffe  : — "  I  boldly  assert  one  thing,  viz.,  that  in 
the  primitive  church,  or  in  the  time  of  Paul,  two  orders 
of  the  clergy  were  sufficient,  that  is,  a  priest  and  a  deacon. 

*  Irenicura,  p.  276,  sec.  ed.,  1662. 
9* 


202       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

In  like  manner  I  affirm,  that  in  the  time  of  Paul,  the  pres- 
hyter  and  bishop  were  names  of  the  same  office.  This 
appears  from  the  third  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  Ti- 
mothy, and  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus. 
And  the  same  is  testified  by  that  profound  theologian^ 
Jerome."* 

Erasmus  : — "  Anciently  none  were  called  priests  but 
bishops  and  presbyters,  who  were  the  same,  but  afterward 
presbyters  were  distinguished  from  the  priest  ;"t  that  is, 
from  the  bishop. 

Cranmer  : — "  The  bishops  and  priests  [presbyters] 
were  at  one  time,  and  were  no  two  things,  but  both  one 
in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion."| 

Dr.  Whitaker,  one  of  the  greatest  Protestant  champi- 
ons in  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  James  I. : — "  For- 
merly there  was  no  difference  between  a  presbyter  and  a 
bishop. — For  the  placing  of  bishops  over  presbyters  was  a 
HUMAN  arrangement — ordo  humanusfuit — devised  to  take 
away  schisms,  as  history  testifies."^ 

Calvin  : — "  The  reason  w^hy  I  have  used  the  terms 
bishops  and  presbyters,  and  pastors  and  ministers,  promis- 
cuously, is,  because  the  Scriptures  do  the  same  ;  for  they 
give  the  title  of  bishops  to  all  persons  whatsoever  who 
were  ministers  of  the  gospeiy^\ 

Beza  : — "  The  authority  of  all  pastors  is  equal  among 
themselves  ;  also  their  office  is  one  and  the  same."T[  As 
mighty  efforts  are  often  made  to  bring  in  the  authority  of 
Beza  for  these  claims,  we  will  add  another  passage  or  two 
from  this  great  reformer.  In  his  work  on  the  Church,  De 
Ecclesia,  above  quoted,  he  begins  the  thirty-second  sec- 
tion thus : — "  At  length  we  come  to  the  third  species  of 
ecclesiastical  offices,  viz.,  that  which  pertains  to  spiritual 
jurisdiction.  Now  this  jurisdiction  was  committed  to 
presbyters  properly  so  called  ;  whose  name  implies  as 
much  as  though  you  should  call  them  senators  or  elders. 
The  apostle,  in  1  Cor.  xii,  28,  calls  them  governors  or 
rulers.     And  Christ  designates  the  college  of  presbyters, 

*  Vaughan's  Life  of  WicklifFe,  vol.  ii,  p.  275,  sec.  ed.    Lond.,  183L 

t  Scholia  in  Epist.  Hieron.  ad  Nepot.,  folio  6,  vol.  i,  ed.  1516. 

t  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation. 

^  Whitakeri  0pp.,  pp.  509,  510,  fol.  Genev.,  1610. 

II  Instit.,  lib.  4,  c.  8,  sec.  8.  %  De  Eccles.,  sec.  29. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        203 

the  church,  because  in  them  resided  the  supreme  power 
in  the  government  of  the  church."  Here  "  presbyters, 
properly  so  called,  have  committed  to  them  the  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  the  church,  and  supreme  poiver.''^  How 
strange  !  to  pretend  that  such  a  writer  is  an  advocate  for 
the  supreme  power  of  bishops  by  divine  right.  Beza, 
speaking  of  the  angel  of  the  church,  mentioned  Rev.  ii,  1, 
calls  him  the  president,  "  who,"  he  says,  "  ought  in  the 
first  place  to  be  admonished  about  these  matters,  and  then 
by  him  his  other  colleagues,  and  so  the  w^hole  church. 
But  from  this  to  try  to  prove  the  establishment  of  that 
order  of  episcopacy  which  was  afterward  introduced  into 
the  church  of  God  by  human  arrangements,  is  what  neither 
can  nor  ought  to  be  done  :  it  will  not  even  follow  from  this 
place  that  the  ofice  of  president  should  necessarily  be  per- 
petual ;  even  as  it  is  now  at  length  clear  by  that  tyrannical 
oligarchy'^''  (that  is,  the  bishops)  "  whose  head  or  apex  is 
antichrist,  and  icho  arose  from  this  scheme  with  the  most 
pernicious  effect  upon  the  wliolc  church,  and  upon  the 
world" 

Melaxcthox  : — "  They  who  taught  in  the  church,  and 
baptized,  and  administered  the  Lord's  supper,  were  called 
bishops  or  presbyters ;  and  those  were  called  deacons  who 
distributed  alms  in  the  church.  But  these  offices  were  not 
so  separated  as  to  make  it  sinful  for  a  deacon  to  teach,  or 
to  baptize,  or  to  administer  the  eucharist.  Indeed  all  these 
things  are  lawful  to  all  Christians  ;  for  the  keys  are  given 
to  all.  Matt,  xviii."* 

M.  Flacius  Illyricus. — Treating  of  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  he  says,  "  A  presbyter  was  then  the  same  as  a 
bishop.''^  Speaking  of  the  primitive  church,  he  says,  "  The 
bishop  was  the  first  presbyter  among  the  presbyters  of 
each  church,  and  this  was  done  for  the  sake  of  order." 
And,  after  quoting  Jerome's  statement,  that,  in  the  apostles'' 
time,  bishops  and  presbyters  were  not  distinguished  one 
from  the  other,  but  that  this  distinction,  of  one  to  preside 
over  the  rest,  was  made  afterward,  as  a  remedy  against 
schism,  Flacius  himself  remarks,  "  Hence  it  is  evident 
that,  about  this  time,  in  the  end  of  the  first  or  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  this  alteration  took  place,  so 
*  Loc.  Com.,  12mo.    Basil,  152L 


204  ON  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION. 

that  episcopacy  is  not  so  much  by  divine  appointment  as 
by  human  authority  "* 

Blondell  and  Dalleus  : — "  Episcopacy  as  now  distin- 
guished from  presbyters,  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
church  from  the  third  century,  is  not  of  apostolical  appoint- 
ment, but  merely  of  human  institution."! 

Claude  : — "  As  to  those  who  were  ordained  by  mere 
priests,  [presbyters,]  can  the  author  of  the  Prejudices  be 
ignorant  that  the  distinction  of  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  or 
minister,  as  if  they  had  two  different  offices,  is  not  only 
a  thing  that  they  cannot  prove  out  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
that  even  contradicts  the  express  words  of  the  Scripture, 
were  bishojjs  and  priests  are  the  names  of  one  and  the  same 
office,  from  whence  it  follows  that  the  priests  have,  by  their 
first  institution,  a  right  to  confer  ordination,  that  cannot  be 
taken  from  them  by  mere  human  rules."J 

BocHART : — "  If  the  question  be  as  to  the  antiquity,  I 
am  plainly  of  opinion,  with  Jerome,  that  in  the  apostles' 
age,  there  was  no  difference  between  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, and  that  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  common 
council  of  the  presbyters.  Therefore  presbyters  are  more 
ancient  than  bishops.  In  the  mean  time  I  grant  that  epis- 
copal government  is  very  ancient,  and  that,  a  little  after 
the  apostles'  times,  it  became  universal  and  greatly  useful." 
See  his  letter  to  Morley,  chaplain  to  King  Charles  I.,  and 
afterward  bishop  of  Worcester.  Upon  this  letter  the  Rev. 
James  Owen  remarks,  "  Of  late  years  some  arts  have  been 
used  to  procure  letters  from  some  eminent  foreign  divines, 
to  condemn  the  nonconformists  here,  without  hearing  both 
sides.  This  is  evident  by  Dr.  Morley's  letter  to  the  famous 
Bochart."^l| 

*  Catalog.  Test.  Veritat.,  vol.  i,  p.  84. 

t  Vid.  Beverigii  Codex  Can.  Eccles.  Prim.  Vind.  Proem. 

X  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  part  iv,  p.  95. 

ij  Abridgment  of  Mr.  James  Owen's  Plea,  p.  39. 

II  "  When  the  French  churches  were  earnestly  solicited  (particularly 
by  Bishop  Moreton)  to  receive  a  clergy  ordained  by  English  bishops, 
they  absolutely  refused  that  motion :  Peter  Moulin,  a  famous  French 
Protestant  minister,  in  his  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  excusing 
himself  for  not  making  the  difference  between  bishops  and  presbyters  to 
be  of  divine  appointment,  he  pleads, — that  if  he  had  laid  the  difference 
on  that  foundation,  the  French  churches  would  have  silenced  him.^^ — 
Ibid.,  pp.  37,  38. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       205 

Grotius  : — "  'ETTLaKOTTT},  or  the  office  of  a  bishop,  sig- 
nifies inspection  or  oversight  of  any  kind.  The  inspectors^ 
or  those  who  preside  over  the  church,  are  presbyters. 
The  chief  of  these  presbyters,  afterward,  by  way  of  excel- 
lence, BEGAN  to  be  called  bishop,  as  is  evident  from  those 
canons  which  are  termed  apostolical  canons,  in  the  Epis- 
tles of  Ignatius,  in  Tertullian,  and  others."*  When  this 
illustrious  scholar  had  received  a  copy  of  the  celebrated 
Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  he  tells  us  he  "  read  and  re- 
read it."  He  then  gives  his  judgment  in  the  following 
manner  : — "  Clemens  never  mentions  that  extraordinary 
authority  of  bishops,  which,  after  the  death  of  St.  Mark, 
began  by  the  custom  of  the  church  to  be  introduced  at  Alex- 
andria, and,  by  this  example,  elsewhere :  but  he  plainly 
shows,  as  St.  Paul  does,  that  the  churches  were  then 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  the  presbyters ;  which 
presbyters  both  Clemens  and  St.  Paul  say  were  the  same 
AS  bishops."!  And,  in  his  posthumous  work,  quoted  by 
many  Episcopalian  writers  with  the  greatest  confidence, 
and  even  with  something  like  triumph,  he  plainly  declares, 
that  "  episcopal  pre-eminence,  or  the  superiority  of  one 
minister  over  others,  is  not  of  divine  right."  "  This," 
says  he,  "  is  sufficiently  proved,  because  the  contrary  is  not 
proved.^X  Logic  this,  which  these  writers  are  well  pleased 
to  forget,  but  which  their  readers  should  always  have  in 
mind. 

Here,  perhaps,  is  a  proper  place  to  point  out  a  mistake 
into  which  many  Church-of-England  divines  have  fallen. 
They  have  found  that  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  illustrious 
foreigners,  praised  the  ecclesiastical  order  in  the  Church 
of  England,  and  have  immediately  jumped  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  those  divines  and  great  scholars  were  in  favour 
of  episcopacy  by  divine  right.  Now  the  whole  conduct 
of  Calvin  and  Beza,  for  instance,  in  the  government  of 
their  churches,  as  well  as  their  declaration  in  the  above 
quotations,  distinctly  shows  the  contrary.  The  case  of 
Zanchius  will  illustrate  the  matter  still  further. 

Zanchius,  says  the  Rev.  J.  Sinclair,  "  was  by  some 

*  Annot.  in  1  Tim.  iii. 

t  Grotii  Epist.,  No.  347,  ed.  Amstel.,  fol.,  1687. 
X  De    Imperio   Sum.    Potest,    circa   Sacra,  cap.    xi,   p.    327,  ed. 
Paris,  1647. 


206        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

reputed  among  the  most  learned  of  Calvin's  contempora- 
ries." Mr.  Sinclair,  and  some  others,  catch  at  an  admis- 
sion of  this  eminent  reformer,  that  episcopacy  may  be 
properly  established,  as  one  form  of  church  government, 
as  though  by  this  admission  he  meant  to  support  episco- 
pacy by  divine  right.  This  is  a  fallacy  which  such  writers 
always  employ :  without  it  they  cannot  stir  a  single  step  in 
this  controversy.  Zanchius  spent  nearly  the  whole  of  his 
life  in  the  services  of  a  church  that  was  wholly preshyterian. 
This  practice,  therefore,  utterly  destroys  all  the  claims  of 
exclusive  Episcopalians  to  the  benefit  of  his  testimony.  In 
his  Confession  of  his  Faith,  he  solemnly  delivers  his 
judgment  on  the  subject  of  ministerial  equality  :  chapter 
twenty-fifth  contains  thirty-nine  aphorisms  on  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  and  on  the  ministry  of  the  gospel. 
In  aphorism  ninth,  he  says  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  con- 
stituted^ve  orders  of  ministers, — "apostles,  prophets,  evan- 
gelists, pastors,  and  doctors,  Ephes.  iv,  11."  The  first 
three  he  says  were  extraordinary  and  temporary ;  the  two 
last  "  ordinary  and  perpetual."  "  For,"  says  he,  "  the 
frequent  mention,  by  the  apostles,  of  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  teachers,  does  not  constitute  new  orders;  for  those 
who  are  called  pastors  are  the  same  as  are  always  signi- 
fied by  bishops  ;  and  often  by  the  name  of  presbyters." 
Zanchius  maintained  the  notion  that  presbyters  sometimes 
meant  lay  elders  as  church  rulers  ;  and,  therefore,  he  says, 
that  presbyters  often  signified  pastors,  though,  in  his  view, 
not  always.  Then,  aphorism  tenth,  the  title  is,  "  The 
fathers  not  condemned  by  us  because  they  added  more 
orders  of  ministers."  In  aphorism  eleventh,  he  explains 
himself  about  these  new  orders,  added  by  the  fathers,  to 
what  Christ  and  his  apostles  instituted.  "  Therefore," 
says  he,  "seeing  that  all  the  former  ministers  of  the  gospel 
were  equally  called  pastors,  bishops,  and  preshyters ;  and 
seeing  they  were  all  of  equal  authority  ;  one  began 
afterward  to  be  placed  over  all  his  colleagues  ;  although 
not  as  a  master  or  lord,  but  as  a  head  in  a  college  to  the 
rest  of  the  felloAvs  of  the  college  :  to  him  principally  was 
committed  the  care  of  the  whole  church,  and  therefore  it 
became  the  custom  to  give  him  alone,  by  way  of  excellence, 
the  name  of  bishop  or  pastor  ;  the  rest  of  his  colleagues 
being  content  with  the  name  of  presbyter;  so  that  there 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        207 

began  to  be  only  one  bishop  and  many  presbyters  in  each 
city :  this  arrangement  we  judge  is  not  at  all  to  be  con- 
demned. As  to  which  matter  the  account  of  Jerome,  and 
the  judgment  he  delivers  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  in  his 
comment  on  Titus,  is  embraced  by  us,  where  he  declares 
that  this  whole  arrangement  was  rather  from  custom  than 
divine  appointment,  to  take  away  dissensions  and  schisms. 
On  the  same  ground  we  think  the  appointment  of  archbish- 
ops, and  even  of  the  four  patriarchs,  which  took  place 
indeed  before  the  council  of  Nice,  may  be  excused  and 
defended :  although  all  these  in  course  of  time  were  car- 
ried to  the  highest  ambition  and  tyranny.  This  is  the 
reason  why  the  nearer  an  approach  is  made  in  the  orders 
of  ministers  to  apostolical  simplicity,  the  more  we  approve 
it ;  and  we  judge  that  due  care  should  everywhere  be 
used  to  attain  to  this  simplicity."  Then,  at  the  close  of 
the  chapter,  is  an  enumeration  of  errors  to  be  rejected  ; 
the  eleventh  is,  that  of  "  extending  the  authority  of  a 
bishop  beyond  that  given  by  Christ  who  called  him." 
Here  we  see  Zanchius  solemnly  declare  his  faith  to  be, 
that  "  all  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  instituted  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  were  equally  called  pastors,  bishops,  and 
presbyters,  seeing  they  were  all  of  equal  authority  ;" 
that  bishops,  as  superintendents  over  other  ministers,  were 
"  added  by  the  fathers  ;"  and  that  the  ground  of  their  exist- 
ence, as  such,  is  the  same  as  that  of  archbishops  and  patri- 
archs, which  all  grant  to  be  merely  a  human  arrangement. 
Zanchius,  then,  maintained  that  episcopacy  was  merely  a 
human  arrangement ;  yet  these  men  quote  him  to  prove  its 
divine  right:  Zanchius  maintained  that  it  might  be  approved 
and  justified  when  modestly  used  ;  yet  these  men  quote 
him  to  maintain  its  necessity  and  its  exclusiveness  against 
the  validity  of  all  other  forms  ! 

But  Calvin,  Beza,  Zanchius,  &c.,  had  no  objection  to 
episcopacy  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement  of  a  superin- 
tendency  of  one  minister  over  other  ministers,  for  the  sake 
of  order  and  good  government  in  the  church  ;  provided  it 
could  be  guarded  against  a  tendency  to  ecclesiastical 
tyranny.  Very  right.  The  Wesleyan  Methodists  adopt 
the  same  opinion,  and  practise  it  under  a  very  extended 
superintendency.  It  is  so  guarded  among  them  as  to  pre- 
vent the  possibility  of  supposing  one  minister  superior  by 


208       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

divine  right  to  another.  The  truth  of  the  case  is,  then, 
that  these  great  continental  divines  and  scholars,  in  their 
approbation  of  the  ecclesiastical  arrangements  in  the 
Church  of  England,  show  that  they  really  believed  the 
episcopacy  of  that  Church  not  to  be  of  divine  right,  but  of 
kuman  authority:  this  is  the  only  legitimate  conclusion 
that  can  be  drawn  from  their  statements  and  conduct ;  a 
conclusion  directly  opposed  to  the  end  for  which  many  of 
the  Episcopalians  now  quote  them.  Indeed,  these  men 
pervert  and  abuse  the  authority  of  the  great  reformers,  and 
continental  divines. 

ViTRiNGA  : — "  All  the  rulers  or  governors  of  the  church 
of  Ephesus  were  equally,  and  without  the  least  difference, 
called  bishops,  presbyters,  and  pastors.  Acts  xx,  17,  &c. 
Yea,  indeed,  were  we  to  collect  all  those  places  in  the  his- 
torical books,  and  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
the  persons  presiding  over  the  church  are  mentioned, 
under  different  circumstances,  we  should  meet  with  them 
everywhere  equal  both  in  name  and  in  office,  no  difference 
at  all  ever  being  made  between  them.  Bishops,  presby- 
ters, and  pastors,  according  to  the  style  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, are  names  designating  one  and  the  same  order  of  men  ; 
they  are  neither  distinguished  in  the  kind  of  their  order, 
nor  their  office.  This  position  will  stand,  I  am  persuaded, 
as  long  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  their  epistles  shall 
be  read  without  prejudice."* 

MosHEiM : — "  The  rulers  of  the  church  were  called 
either  presbyters  or  bishops,  which  two  titles  are,  in  the 
New  Testament,  undoubtedly  applied  to  the  same  order  of 

men."t 

SuiCER  : — "  At  the  first,  therefore,  all  presbyters  were 
equally  over  the  flock,  and  had  none  over  themselves ;  for 
they  were  called  bishops,  and  had  episcopal  power,  and  ac- 
knowledged none  above  themselves,  seeing  they  all  came  by 
order  to  the  primacy,  which  primacy  was  only  a  matter 
of  order  by  sitting  in  the  first  chair,  and  conferred  no 
superior  power.  And  this  was  the  constitution  of  the 
church  under  the  government  of  the  apostles.  Afterward, 
when  bishops  were  made  above  presbyters,  both  being  the 
SAME  in  name  and  reality,  then  the  bishops  presided  over 

*  De  Synagog.  Vet.,  lib.  2,  cap.  2,  pp.  447  and  485. 
t  Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  p.  101. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       209 

the  presbyters  of  each  city,  all  bishops  being  accounted 
equal.  This  state  of  things  continued  till  the  council  of 
Nice,  A.  D.  325,  or  a  little  after.  From  that  time  metro- 
politans were  placed  over  the  bishops  of  a  province,  and 
had  the  right  of  ordaining  the  bishops  of  that  province."* 

ScHLEUSNER  : — "  For  at  length,  after  the  apostles'  age, 
that  difference  was  introduced  betv^een  the  bishops  and 
presbyters,  that  the  bishops  should  have  the  greater  digni- 
ty, as  Suicerus  rightly  states  in  his  Thesaurus  Ecclesias- 

ticus."t 

Archbishop  Usher  : — "  I  asked  him  [Abp.  Usher] 
also  his  judgment  about  the  vdXidlijoi presbyter'' s  ordination; 
which  he  asserted,  and  told  me  that  the  king  [Charles  I.] 
asked  him,  at  the  Isle  of  Wight,  wherever  he  found  in 
antiquity,  that  presbyters  alone  ordained  any  ?  and  that  he 
answered,    I    can   show   your  majesty  more,  even  where 

PRESBYTERS     ALONE     SUCCESSIVELY    ORDAINED    BISHOPS  ; 

and  instanced  in  Hierome's  words,  Epist.  ad  Evagrium, 
of  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  chusing  and  making  their 
own  bishops  from  the  days  of  Mark  till  Heraclas  and  Dio- 
nysius."J  And  his  express  words,  quoted  by  Dr.  Parr,  in 
his  Appendix  to  the  Archbishop's  Life,  are  these — "  A 
presbyter  hath  the  same  order  in  specie  with  a  bishop  : 
ergo,  a  presbyter  hath  equally  an  intrinsic  power  to  give 
orders,  and  is  equal  to  him  in  the  power  of  order. ''^^ 

Now  here  is  a  host  of  men,  whose  qualifications  for 
giving  their  judgment  in  this  matter  were  never  surpassed, 
all  determining,  with  one  voice,  that  by  divine  right 
all  ministers  of  the  GOSPEL  ARE  EQUAL ;  and  that  the 
order  of  bishops,  as  noiu  existing,  is  only  a  human  ar- 
rangement. 

Here,  then,  this  all-deciding  point  is  placed  on  the  basis 
of  a  catholic  or  universal  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
church.  The  celebrated  rule  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis  is,  that 
a  doctrine  truly  catholic,  is  one  "  believed  in  all  places,  at 
all  times,  and  by  all  the  faithful.  And  we  are  thus  catho- 
lic, when  we  follow  universality,  antiquity,  and  consent  : 
but  we  follow  universality,  when  we  profess  that  only  to  be 

*  Thesaur.  Eccles.,  torn,  i,  col.  1180. 

t  Lex.  Gr.  in  Nov.  Test.,  sub  voce  eTTLaKOirog. 

X  Life  of  Baxter,  by  Sylvester,  fol.,  lib.  i,  part  ii,  sec.  63,  p.  206. 

i)  See  Dr.  John  Edwards's  Discourse  on  Episcopacy,  chap.  xiv. 


210        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  true  faith  which  is  professed  by  the  church  all  the 
world  over.  In  like  manner,  we  are  followers  of  antiquity, 
when  we  religiously  adhere  to  that  sense  of  Scripture 
which  manifestly  obtained  among  the  holy  fathers,  our 
predecessors.  And  lastly,  we  follow  consent,  when  we 
embrace  the  definitions  and  opinions  of  almost  all,  if  not 
all,  the  bishops  and  teachers  of  the  ancient  church."* 
Vincentius  himself  shows  no  case  in  which  this  rule  more 
fully  applied  than  it  applies  to  the  position,  that  all  gospel 
ministers  are,  by  divine  right,  equal  in  power  and  authority 
in  the  Christian  church. 

The  MAIN  PILLAR  of  this  semi-popish  succession  scheme 
was  the  assumption  of  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy. 
But  we  have  now  shown  that  presbyters  and  bishops  are 
one  and  the  same,  by  the  supreme  authority  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures  most  expressly;  by  the  consent  of  the 
FATHERS  ;  and  by  the  consent  of  all  the  Christian 
churches  in  the  world.  The  following  conclusions,  then, 
are  fully  established  : — 

1 .  All  the  acts  of  presbyters  are,  by  divine  right,  of 
equal  authority  with  the  acts  of  any  bishops  or  arch- 
bishops whatever. 

2.  Ordination  hy  presbyters  has  equal  divine  authority 
with  ordination  by  bishops  ;  and  is  more  conformable  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

3.  Presbyters  are  equally  as  much  successors  of  the 
apostles,  in  all  the  rights  and  authority  remaining  to  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  as  the  bishops  are. 

4.  Whatever  evidence,  moreover,  there  is  in  any  epis- 
copal church  for  an  uninterrupted  line  of  bishops  from 
Peter,  or  any  other  apostle,  there  is  the  same  evidence  for 
an  uninterrupted  line  of  presbyters  from  that  very 
apostle  to  the  present  day  in  every  other  Protestant  church 
in  the  world.  No  man  can  properly  or  Scripturally  be  a 
bishop,  except  he  be  first  a  presbyter.  Every  bishop, 
then,  necessarily  presupposes  a  presbyter:  where  there  is 
no  presbyter,  there  can  be  no  bishop,  even  on  the  princi- 
ples of  our  opponents.  Therefore,  wherever  there  is  an 
uninterrupted  series  of  true  bishops,  there  is  an  uninterrupt- 
ed series  of  presbyters  also.  The  Lutheran  church,  the 
Reformed  or  Calvinistic  churches  of   Germany,  the  re- 

*  Reeves's  Translation,  chap.  iii. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        211 

formed  French  church,  the  church  of  Scotland,  the  Dis- 
senters in  general  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the 
Wesley  an  and  Calvinistic  Methodists,  are  all  governed  hy 
presbyters.  These  had  an  uninterrupted  succession  from 
other  presbj'ters.  Those  in  the  Scotch  church,  in  the 
Lutheran  church,  &c.,  had  an  uninterrupted  succession 
from  the  presbyters  (bishops)  of  the  Romish  Church : 
those  of  the  different  Protestant  churches  in  England, 
from  the  presbyters  (bishops)  of  the  Church  of  England. 
What  these  bishops  were,  by  ecclesiastical  or  human  ar- 
rangement, as  distinct  from  presbyters,  or  real  Scriptural 
bishops,  adds  no  validity  to  their  acts  above  presbyters. 
This  we  have  already  clearly  proved.  All  they  had  of 
real  Scriptural  authority  arose  from  any  claim  they  might 
have  to  be  considered  as  real  Scriptural  presbyters.  All 
this  authority  passed  to  the  presbyters  of  the  above-men- 
tioned churches  by  uninterrupted  succession  in  their  ordi- 
nation. The  human  authority  of  a  bishop  does  not  effect 
the  question  at  all.  If  an  uninterrupted  succession  is  worth 
any  thing,  it  is,  therefore,  worth  as  much  for  presbyters  as 
for  bishops.  The  ministry,  the  ordinations,  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,  in  all  the  above-mentioned 
churches,  therefore,  are,  even  on  this  ground,  equally  as 
Scriptural,  valid,  and  apostolical,  as  the  ministry,  &c.,  of 
any  episcopal  church.  But,  if  they  have  equal  validity 
and  apostolicity  from  the  argument  of  a  succession  of 
persons,  many  of  them  have  reason  to  thank  God,  on 
their  own  behalf,  that  they  have  much  more  evidence  of 
the  same  thing  from  the  personal  piety  of  their  ministers, 
the  doctrines  they  teach,  the  discipline  exercised  over  their 
members,  the  unsecularized  state  of  their  churches,  the 
Scriptural  character  of  their  various  ordinances,  and,  above 
all,  in  the  conversion  of  sinners  unto  God. 

This  exclusive,  intolerant  scheme,  then,  of  apostolical 
succession  in  bishops  alone,  as  taught  by  these  high 
Church  divines,  falls  to  the  ground.  It  is  a  monstrous 
FABRICATION,  designed  to  support  a  system  of  usurpation 
over  ministers  and  people ;  and  to  maintain  a  method  of 
excluding  from  the  pale  of  Christianity  all  who  do  not  sub- 
mit to  it.  It  is  Anglican  Popery  with  many  heads,  set  up 
in  the  place,  and  to  accomplish  the  purposes,  of  the  Popery 
of  Rome.     Let  all  true  Protestants  protest  against  it.    Let 


213       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

us  contend  for  the  succession  oi  faith  and  holiness  as  the 
only  infalUble  tests  of  a  Christian  church.  For  this  let  all 
the  true  members  of  the  Church  of  England  contend,  both 
ministers  and  people.  The  writer,  for  one,  will  then  fer- 
vently pray  that  God  may  make  them  a  thousand  times  as 
many  more  as  they  are  at  this  day.  The  world  is  before 
us  :  the  faith  of  the  gospel  must  save  it.  It  is  adapted  and 
designed  for  this  purpose.  May  the  preaching  of  this 
faith,  by  whomsoever  and  wheresoever,  have  free  course 
and  be  glorified ! 


SECTION  X. 

NO  SUFFICIENT  HISTORIC   EVIDENCE    OF    A  PERSONAL   SUC- 
CESSION OF  VALID  EPISCOPAL  ORDINATIONS. 

In  the  close  of  the  last  section,  we  have  shown  that  the 
proof  of  the  equality,  by  divine  right,  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  is  fatal  to  the  whole  scheme  of  high  Church  suc- 
cessionists ;  utterly  destroying  its  exclusive  character. 
Here  we  might  safely  rest  the  cause.  But  as  pretensions 
are  boldly  avowed,  by  high  Churchmen,  of  their  ability  to 
trace  the  pedigree  of  their  ordinations  through  an  unbroken 
series  of  apostolical  bishops  ;  and  as  they  employ  this  topic 
for  the  purpose  of  intolerance,  it  may  not  be  without  inte- 
rest, or  utility  either,  if  we  examine  this  point  also.  Dr. 
Hook  shall  state  their  case :  "  The  prelates  who  at  the 
present  time  rule  the  churches  of  these  realms,  were 
validly  ordained  by  others,  who  by  means  of  an  unbroken 
spiritual  descent  of  ordination,  derived  their  mission  from 
the  apostles  and  from  our  Lord.  This  continued  descent  is 
evident  to  every  one  who  chooses  to  investigate  it. 
Let  him  read  the  Catalogues  of  Bishops,  ascending  up  to  the 
most  remote  period.  Our  ordinations  descend  in  a  direct 
unbroken  line  from  Peter  and  Paul,  the  apostles  of  the 
circumcision  and  the  Gentiles.  These  great  apostles  suc- 
cessively ordained  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clement,  bishops  of 
Rome ;  and  the  apostolic  succession  was  regularly  con- 
tinued from  them  to  Celestine,  Gregory,  and  Vitalianus, 
who  ordained  Patrick,  bishop  for  the  Irish,  and  Augustine 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       21^ 

and  Theodore,  for  the  English.  And  from  those  times  an 
uninterrupted  series  of  valid  ordinations  has  carried  down 
the  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  in  our  churches  to  the 
present  day.  There  is  not  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon 
among  us,  who  cannot,  if  he  please,  trace  his  own  spiritual 
descent  from  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul."* 

I  am  perplexed  to  account  for  such  statements  as  the 
above.  I  have  investigated  this  subject,  and  I  solemnly 
declare  my  belief  that  they  are  utterly  false.  My  per- 
plexity is,  I  say,  how  to  account  for  them.  I  cannot,  I  do 
not  think,  that  the  authors  of  them  mean  to  say  what  they 
know  to  be  false.  I  suppose  they  loished  them  to  be  true  ; 
and,  not  having  time  to  examine  for  themselves,  take  them 
upon  trust,  and  give  them  at  second  hand.  But  then  if  we 
can  find  excuse  for  Dr.  Hook's  want  of  knowledge  of  his 
subject,  his  arrogance  can  have  none.  Let  the  reader  care- 
fully mark  the  tone  of  the  doctor's  Two  Sermons  on  the 
Church  and  the  Establishment.  They  are  full  of  arrogance 
and  insolence  to  all  other  churches — "  The  words  of  his 
mouth  are  smoother  than  butter,  but  war  is  in  his  heart  : 
his  words  are  softer  than  oil,  yet  are  they  drawn  swords." 
"  You  will  observe,"  says  he,  "  how  important  all  this  is 
which  I  have  now  laid  before  you.  Unless  Christ  be 
spiritually  present  with  the  ministers  of  religion  in  their 
services,  those  services  will  be  vain.  But  the  only  min- 
istrations to  which  he  has  promised  his  presence,  is,  to 
those  of  the  bishops  who  are  successors  of  the  first  com- 
missioned apostles,  and  the  other  clergy  acting  under 
THEIR  sanction  and  by  their  authority. 

"  I  know  the  outcry  which  is  raised  against  this — the 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  for  eighteen  hundred 
years — I  know  the  outcry  that  is  raised  against  it  by 
those  sects  which  can  trace  their  origin  no  higher  than 
to  some  celebrated  preacher  at  the  Reformation, — ^but  I 
disregard  it,  because  I  shall,  by  God's  help,  continue  to 
do,  what  I  have  done  ever  since  I  came  among  you, 
namely,  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  without  re- 
gard to  consequences  or  respect  of  persons,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  live  peaceably  with  all 
men."  After  perusing  the  preceding  part  of  this  Essay, 
the  reader  will  clearly  see  how  much  confidence  is  to  be 
*  Two  Sermons,  3d  edition,  Leeds,  1837,  pp.  7,  8. 


214        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

placed  in  the  doctor's  assertion,  that  his  doctrine  of  apos- 
tolical succession  has  been  "  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
church  for  eighteen  hundred  years."  His  excommunica- 
tion of  ALL  the  Protestant  churches  in  the  loorld  from  the 
pale  of  Christianity,  except  the  Church  of  England,  (for  it 
is  at  these  he  points  the  finger  of  scorn — "  those  sects 
which  can  trace  their  origin  no  higher  than  to  some  cele- 
brated preacher  at  the  Reformation,")  is  exactly  in  the 
spirit  of  the  declaration  of  Froude,  a  leader  of  the  Oxford 
Tract-men,  quoted  at  page  144: — "Really,"  says  he,  "I 
HATE  the  Reformation  and  the  reformers  more  and 
more."  Yet  all  this  baseless  assertion,  and  this  denuncia- 
tion against  all  these  Protestant  churches,  the  doctor  be- 
lieves he  makes  "  hy  the  help  of  God  /" — and,  at  the  same 
time,  he  persuades  himself  that  he  endeavours  "  to  live 
peaceably  with  all  men  ! .'" 

Let  it  be  understood  that  the  writer  of  this  Essay  does 
not  wish  to  undervalue  the  succession  of  pious  'pastors  in 
any  church  ;  no,  it  ought  to  be  a  cause  of  gratitude  to  God, 
when  he  raises  up  and  gives  such  men  to  his  church. 
But  God's  gifts  never  bind  his  own  hands  from  giving 
equally  excellent  men,  in  any  age,  to  any  church.  How- 
ever, the  case  is  altogether  different  when  those  who 
arrogate  the  title  of  his  ministers,  corrupt  the  gospel,  and 
absolutely  forbid  any  one,  without  their  sanction  and  sinful 
impositions,  to  preach  it  in  a  purer  form.  And,  since  the 
lime  of  the  apostles,  this  has  been  done  repeatedly  by 
pretenders  to  apostolical  succession.  Indeed,  could  this 
personal  descent  be  made  out  with  the  completeness  pre- 
tended, it  would  prove  no  divine  right  to  any  exclusive 
claims  to  God's  ordinances  and  blessings.  God  never 
made  it  a  requisite  in  true  ministers  ;  and  the  man  that 
attempts  it,  in  order  to  exclude  other  churches  from  the 
pale  of  Christianity,  is  an  enemy  to  the  rights,  and  to  the 
peace  of  God's  church.  He  may  have  deceived  himself, 
and  think  otherwise  ;  but  such  he  is,  and  such  he  must  be, 
till  he  abandon  his  scheme.  No  such  descent,  however, 
can  be  proved. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  show  that  there  is  no  suffi- 
cient historic  evidence  of  this  "  direct  unbroken  line 
from  Peter,"  &;c.  Every  link  of  this  evidence  ought  to  be 
clear  and  strong.     Dr.  Hook  says  they  are  "  evident  to  any 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       215 

one  who  wishes  to  investigate  the  subject."     But  the  very 
first  links  are  all  broken  in  pieces. 

Eusebius  is  often  appealed  to  with  confidence  by  suc- 
cession divines.  He  had  the  fairest  opportunity  for  giving 
certainty  to  this  subject  up  to  his  day,  could  certainty  have 
been  had.  He  wrote  about  A.  D.  320.  He  had  read 
every  thing  which  remained  by  any  or  all  of  the  fathers 
before  him.  The  emperor  Constantine  the  Great  was  his 
friend ;  so  that  he  could  not  want  facilities  and  means  of 
information.  One  great  end  at  which  Eusebius  aimed, 
was  "to  preserv^e  from  oblivion  the  successions,  although 
not  of  all,  yet  of  the  most  famous  apostles  of  our  Saviour 
in  those  churches  which  then  were  eminent  and  still 
renowned."* 

Now  let  us  hear  his  own  account  of  the  certainty  he 
possessed  on  such  subjects.  He  tells  us,  in  this  very 
chapter,  that  he  had  "  to  tread  a  solitary  and  untrodden 
way — and  could  nowhere  find  so  much  as  the  bare  steps  of 
any  men  who  had  passed  the  same  path  before ;  excepting 
only  some  shows  and  tokens  divers  here  and  there  had  left, 
particularly  declaring  of  the  times  they  lived  in,  holding 
forth  torches  as  it  were  afar  off,  and  lifting  up  their  voices 
from  on  high,  and  calling  as  out  of  a  watch-tower  what  way 
we  ought  to  go,  and  how  without  error  or  danger  to  order 
our  discourse."  This  is  not  a  very  luminous,  certain 
path ! — Then  speaking  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  the  churches 
founded  by  them,  he  says,  "  Now  how  many  and  what 
sincere  followers  of  them  have  been  approved  as  sufficient 
to  take  the  charge  of  those  churches  by  them  founded,  it 
is  not  easy  to  say,  except  such  and  so  many  as  may  be 
collected  from  the  words  of  St.  Paul."  This  is  honest; 
but  it  shows  the  folly  of  building  our  Christianity  upon 
such  an  uncertain  foundation ;  for  St.  Paul  gives  no  suc- 
cession lists ;  and  even  Eusebius  hath  nothing  certain 
besides  the  words  of  St.  Paul.  He  then  proceeds  to  say, 
"  Timothy  is  reported  to  have  been  the  first  that  was 
chosen  to  the  bishopric  of  the  Ephesian  church ;  as  also 
Titus,  of  the  churches  in  Crete."  This  is  evidently  guess- 
work in  its  origin,  upon  the  foundation  of  St.  Paul's  having 
mentioned  their  names  in  connection  with  these  two 
places  ;  for  Whitby  acknowledges  he  "  can  find  nothing 
*  Eccles.  Hist.,  b.  i,  chap,  i,  English  translation   Cambridge,  1683. 


216       ON  APOStOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

of  this  matter,  as  to  Timothy  and  Titus  being  bishops  of 
Ephesus  and  Crete,  in  any  writer  of  the  f,rst  three  centU" 
riesT*  The  thing  refutes  itself  in  Eusebius,  as  to  Titus, 
by  saying  that  he  was  bishop  of  the  "  churches,"  eKKXeaidiV^ 
in  the  plural,  in  Crete.  No  such  thing  occurs  in  the  ear- 
liest Christian  writers  as  that  of  any  man  being  bishop  of 
more  than  one  church,  {one  parish.)  This  was  seldom,  if 
ever,  more  than  a  single  congregation.  Timothy,  the 
New  Testament  says,  was  an  evangelist :  most  probably 
Titus  was  so  too.  No  place  of  residence  is  mentioned  as 
to  either  of  them  :  it  is  likely  they  had  none,  but  travelled 
anywhere  under  the  direction  of  the  apostles,  to  set  in 
order  in  new  churches  the  things  that  remained  to  be  set- 
tled. All  beyond  this  is  doubtful :  all  contrary  to  it  is 
false.  Bishop  Pearson,  whom  all  Churchmen  will  allow 
to  be  unexceptionable  authority,  positively  declares  that 
Eusebius  had  no  archives  or  diptychs  to  go  by ;  and  he 
says,  the  supposition  that  he  had  Catalogues  of  the  Roman 
bishops  is  utterly  vain — "  conjecturam  vanissimam  esse.''''^ 
As  to  bishops  of  Rome,  we  shall  immediately  see  that 
Eusebius  is  contradicted  by  others.  There  is  no  cer- 
tainty. 

Dr.  H.  adroitly  slips  by  a  difficulty  of  no  small  magni- 
tude, by  tracing  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  Peter  or 
Paul,  Linus,  &c.  "  There  is  a  npcj-ov  -i^evdog  in  this 
case  lies  at  the  bottom,"  says  Dr.  Cave,  "  it  being  gene- 
rally taken  for  granted,  that  St.  Peter  was  in  a  proper  sense 
bishop  of  Rome,  which  yet  I  believe  can  never  be  made 
good. "I  It  is  a  question  never  yet  settled,  whether  Peter 
ever  was  at  Rome ;  but  all  the  authority  there  is  for  Linus, 
Cletus,  and  Clemens,  as  links  in  the  chain,  make  them  to 
have  derived  ii  from  Peter,  and  not  from  Paul.  Now  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer  says,  "  It  is  not  even  certain  that  Peter 
ever  was  at  Rome.^^^  The  very  learned  Flacius  lUyricus 
declares  himself  doubtful  whether  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome.H 
The  learned   Zanchius,   another   eminent   reformer,   has 

*  Whitby's  Preface  to  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
t  Pearsoni  0pp.  Posth.  de  Successions,  diss,  i,  cap.  ii. 
t  Dr.  Cave  on  the  Government  of  the  Ancient  Church,  pp.  9,  10,  ed. 
1683,  12mo.  Lond. 

(}  Burnet's  Ref ,  book  ii,  A.  D.  1534. 

II  Catalog.  Test.  Ver.,  v.  1,  pp.  484,  485,  edit,  secund. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  217 

shown  enough  to  make  any  candid  person  stand  in  doubt 
on  the  same  subject.* 

However,  suppose  we  grant  this,  and  even  reckon  Peter 
the  first  bishop  of  Rome  :  then  wlio  succeeded  Peter  ?  No 
man  on  earth  can  tell.  One  mentions  one  person,  another 
says  it  was  another,  and  these  the  very  witnesses  who  are 
cited  to  prove  the  point.  "  The  fathers,"  says  Dr.  D wight, 
"  however  sincere,  and  however  satisfactory  their  testi- 
mony, concerning  facts  which  passed  under  their  own 
eyes,  yet  received  traditionary  accounts  loosely  :  and  both 
believed  and  recorded  much  of  what  took  place  before  their 
time  without  truth  or  evidence."  Bishop  Taylor  himself 
says,  "  the  fathers  were  infixitely  deceived  in  their  ac- 
count and  enumeration  of  traditions^]  Now  Tertullian, 
Rufinus,  and  Epiphanius,  say  Clement'  succeeded  Peter. 
Jerome  declares  that  "  most  of  the  Latin  authors  supposed 
the  order  to  be  Clement  the  successor  of  Peter. ''^  But  Ire- 
naeus,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  contradict  the 
above  authorities,  and  say  Linus  succeeded  Peter ;  Chry- 
sostom  seems  to  go  the  same  way.  Bishop  Pearson  has 
proved  that  Linus  died  before  Peter  ;  and  therefore,  on  the 
supposition  that  Peter  was  first  bishop  of  Rome,  Linus 
could  not  succeed  him.  Cabassute,  the  learned  Popish 
historian  of  the  Councils,  says,  "  It  is  a  very  doubtful 
question  concerning  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clemens,  as  to 
which  of  them  succeeded  Peter."  Dr.  Comber,  a  very 
learned  divine  of  the  Church  of  England,  says,  "  Upon  the 
whole  matter,  there  is  no  certainty  who  was  bishop  of 
Rome,  next  to  the  apostles,  and  therefore  the  Romanists" 
(N.B.,  Romanists)  "build  upon  an  ill  bottom,  when 
they  lay  so  great  weight  on  their  personal  succession."! 

But  who  was  the  third  bishop  of  Rome  ?  for  of  the  second 
there  is  no  certainty  to  be  had.  Here  the  confusion  is 
greater  still.  The  Roman  Catalogues — the  Catalogues  of 
high  Churchmen — must  have  somebody,  so  they  put  Cletus 
in.  Hear  Dr.  Comber  again  :  "  The  like  blunder  there 
is  about  the  next  pope,  [bishop  of  Rome,]  the  fabulous 
Pontifical  makes  Cletus  succeed  Linus,  and  gives  us  seve- 
ral Lives  of  Cletus,  and  Anacletus,  making  them  of  several 

*  Zanchius  de  Ecclesia,  cap.  9. 
t  Liberty  of  Prophesying,  sec.  5. 

t  Dr.  Comber  on  "  Roman  Forgeries  in  Councils,"  part  i,  c.  1. 
10 


218       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

nations,  and  to  have  been  popes  at  different  times,  putting 
Clement  between  them.  Yet  the  aforesaid  learned  bishop 
of  Chester  [Pearson]  proves  these  were  only  two  names 
of  the  SAME  person  ;  but  the  notes"  (of  the  Popish  editors 
of  the  Councils)  "  attempt  to  justify  the  forged  Pontifical, 
by  impudently  affirming  that  Ignatius,  (Anacletus's  contem- 
porary,) Ireneeus,  Eusebius,  St.  Augustine,  and  Optatus, 
were  all  mistaken,  or  all  wronged  by  their  transcribers, 
who  leave  out  Cletus.  But  every  candid  reader  will 
rather  believe  the  mistake  to  be  in  the  Pontifical,  (which 
is  a  mere  heap  of  errors,)  and  in  the  Roman  Martyrology 
and  Missal,  which  blindly  followed  it,  rather  than  in  those 
ancient  and  eminent  fathers.  And  every  one^nay  see  the 
folly  of  the  Romish  Church,  which  venerates  two  several 
saints  on  two  several  days,  one  of  which  never  had  a  real 
being ;  for  Cletus  is  but  the  abbreviation  of  Anacletus's 
namey — Dr.  Comber,  ut  supra. 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  reader,  that  as  Dr.  Hook, 
&c.,  maintain  the  same  unbroken  line  of  bishops  with  the 
Roman  Pontifical,  Dr.  Comber's  remarks  apply  directly  to 
their  succession  in  common  with  that  of  the  Papists.  The 
Pontifical  is  the  Romish  book  containing  the  lives  and 
pretended  decrees  of  the  early  popes,  according  to  the 
opinion  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Their  Catalogues  are 
generally  made  from  it :  it  is  justly  denominated  a  forgery 
by  Dr.  Comber.  What  a  triumphant  succession !  whose 
main  authority  is  a  forgery.* 

Then  who  was  fourth  bishop  of  Rome  ?  The  Papists, 
Dr.  Hook,  &c.,  say  Clement  was.  Dr.  Hook  does  not 
distinctly  make  Peter  bishop  of  Rome  ;  but  this  makes  no 
material  difference.  Now  we  have  heard  that  Tertullian, 
Rufinus,  Epiphanius,  and,  according  to  Jerome,  "  most  of 
the  Latin  authors,"  say  he  was  second  bishop,  and  suc- 
ceeded next  to  Peter.  Platina,  the  Popish  biographer  of 
the  popes,  a  high  authority  in  his  way,  says,  that  just  be- 
fore Peter's  martyrdom  he  appointed  Clement  to  be  bishop 
of  Rome ;  and  all  this  while  he  gives  twenty-three  years 
to  the  presidency  of  Linus  and  Cletus  as  preceding  Cle- 
ment in  that  bishopric.     Peter  had  been  dead  twenty  years 

*  That  this  Pontifical  is  a  forgery  is  proved  beyond  a  doubt  by 
numerous  authors ;  among  others,  see  Howell's  Pontificate,  Dupin's 
Bibliotheca  Patrum,  Jewel's  Defence. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       219 

when  Clement  is  said  to  become  bishop  ;  and  yet  they  say 
Peter  made  him  bishop  of  Rome  !  Cabassute  says,  "  tJie 
whole  question  is  very  doubtful!'^  Prideaux,  a  stanch  and 
learned  Churchman,  says,  "  no  certaixty  is  to  be  had." 
Howell,  a  thorough  Churchman,  and  learned  writer,  after 
going  at  length  into  w^hat  he  calls  the  stupidity  and  fables 
of  the  Romanists  on  this  point,  concludes  : — "  Here  it  is 
evident  how  very  doubtful  and  uncertain  is  the  -personal  suc- 
cession of  the  Roman  bishops."  Dr.  Comber  concludes 
this  point  by  remarking,  that  the  stupidity  and  fable  here 
are  ^' d^  sufficient  proof  there  is  neither  truth  nor  cer- 
tainty in  the  pretended  personal  succession  of  the  first 
popes."  Dr.  Hook  must  set  his  priests,  curates,  and  dea- 
cons to  work.  Here  is  enough  to  do  for  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Ward,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ayliffe  Poole,  &c.,  with  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Hook  to  assist  them. 

Similar  confusion  is  to  be  found  in  several  succeeding 
parts.  Platina,  who  had  as  good  opportunity  as  any  man 
to  know  the  truth  of  history,  as  to  the  succession  of  the 
popes,  &c.,  acknowledges  that  the  authorities  on  the  sub- 
ject, in  several  of  the  following  centuries,  were  full  of 
confusion.*,  "  And  he  complains,"  says  Prideaux,  "  that 
they  who  were  appointed  as  protonotaries  to  register  the 
passages  in  the  church  were  in  his  time  become  so  illite- 
rate, that  some  of  them  could  scarce  write  their  own  names 
in  Latin."  Fine  chroniclers !  on  whose  faithfulness  and 
accuracy  to  place  the  existence  of  our  Christianity !  Pri- 
deaux remarks  in  another  place,  A.D.  858,  that  "  Onu- 
phrius,  Platina,  Ciaconius,  complain  much  of  the  neglect 
of  registering,  [and]  the  confusion  of  their  popes'  lives, 
notwithstanding  their  succession  is  made  such  a  con- 
vincing argument." 

The  ELECTIONS  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  increase  the 
doubts  of  a  serious  inquirer  here.  They  were,  even  long 
before  the  time  of  Vitalianus,  such  scenes  of  intrigue,  con- 
tention, violence,  and  bloodshed,  that  there  is  far  greater 
probability  that,  Scripturally  speaking,  the  most  orthodox 
and  excellent  person  was  thrown  out,  and  a  heretic,  as 
Liberius,  or  a  murderer,  usurped  the  seat,  than  that  any 
thing  like  a  legitimate  succession  constantly  took  place. 

Bishop  Burnet  shows  that  for  about  three  hundred  years 
*  See  his  Lives  of  Anicetus  L,  John  XIII.  and  XV. 


220       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

"  the  popes  were  made  upon  the  emperors'  mandates.  Nor 
did  the  emperors  part  easily  with  this  right,  but,  after  that, 
the  Othos  and  the  Henrys  kept  up  their  pretension,  and 
came  oft  to  Rome,  and  made  many  popes ;  and  though 
most  of  the  popes  so  made  were  generally  anti-popes  and 
schismatics,  yet  some  of  them,  as  Clement  the  Second, 
are  put  in  the  Catalogues" — the  succession — "  of  the 
Popes  by  Baronius  and  Binnius  ;  and  by  the  late  publish- 
ers of  the  Councils,  Labbee  and  Cossartius.  There  was 
indeed  great  opposition  made  to  this  at  Rome  ;  but  let  even 
their  own  historians  be  appealed  to,  what  a  series  of 
MONSTERS,  and  not  men,  those  popes" — succession  bishops 
— "  were  ;  how  infamously  they  were  elected,  often  by 
THE  WHORES  OF  RoME,  and  how  flagitious  they  were,  we 
refer  it  to  Baronius  himself,  who  could  not  deny  this  for 
all  his  partiality  in  his  great  work."*  A  fine  uninterrupted 
"  SERIES — of  monsters" — apostolical  bishops — "  elected 
often  by  the  whores  of  Rome  !  l^^  A  pretty  spiritual  de- 
scent for  high  Church  priests  ! ! 

As  Cardinal  Baronius  was  one  of  the  greatest  champions 
of  Popery,  his  testimony  to  the  wickedness  employed  in 
the  election  of  the  popes  is  above  all  exception.  He 
says,  speaking  of  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  "  O  ! 
what  was  then  the  face  of  the  holy  Roman  Church !  how 
filthy,  when  the  vilest  and  7nost  powerful  whores  ruled  in 
the  court  of  Rome !  by  whose  arbitrary  sway  diocesses 
w^ere  made  and  unmade,  bishops  were  consecrated,  and — 
which  is  inexpressibly  horrible  to  be  mentioned ! — false 
popes,  their  paramours,  were  thrust  into  the  chair  of 
Peter,  who,  in  being  numbered  as  popes  serve  no  purpose 
except  to  FILL  up  the  Catalogues  of  the  Popes  of 
Rome.  For  who  can  say  that  persons  thrust  into  the 
popedom  without  any  law  by  whores  of  this  sort  were 
legitimate  popes  of  Rome  ?  In  these  elections  no  mention 
is  made  of  the  acts  of  the  clergy,  either  by  their  choosing 
the  pope  at  the  time  of  his  election,  or  of  their  consent 
afterward.  All  the  canons  were  suppressed  into  silence, 
the  voice  of  the  decrees  of  former  pontiffs  was  not  allowed 
to  be  heard,  ancient  traditions  were  proscribed,  the  customs 
formerly  practised  in  electing  the  pope,  with  the  sacred 

*  Vindication  of  the  Ordinations  of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  50, 
4to.,  secOTid  edition.    Lond.,  1688. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       221 

rites,  and  pristine  usages,  were  all  extinguished.  In  this 
manner,  lust,  supported  by  secular  power,  excited  to 
frenzy  in  the  rage  for  domination,  ruled  in  all  things." 
His  own  words  are— 

"  Qu(B  tunc  fades  sanctcB  Ecdesids  Rofnancs  !  qudm  fcB- 
dissima  cum  Rottkb  dorrdnarentur  potentissimcB  mqu^  et  sor- 
didissimcB  meretrices !  quarum  arhitrio  mutarentur  sedes, 
darentur  Episcopi,  et  quod  auditu  horrendum  et  infandurn 
€st^  intruderentur  in  Sedem  Petri  earum  amassii  Pseudo- 
Pontijices,  que  non  sint  nisi  ad  consignanda  tantum  tempora 
in  catalogo  Romanorum  Pontijicum  scripti.  Quis  enim  d 
scortis  hujusmodi  ifitrusos  sine  lege  legitimos  dicere  posset 
Romanos  fuisse  Pontijices  ?  Nusquajn  Cleri  eligentis,  vel 
postea  consentientis  aliqua  mentio.  Canones  omnes  pressi 
silentio,  decreta  Pontijicum  suffocata,  proscriptcB  antiqucB 
traditiones,  veteresque  in  elegendo  Summo  Pontijice  consue- 
tudines,  sacrique  ritus,  et  pristinus  usus  prorsus  extincti. 
Sic  vendicaverat  omnia  sihi  libido,  scBculari  potentia  freta, 
insaniens,  <sstro  percita  dominandiT* 

We  shall  afterward  show  clearly  that  the  English  bishops 
frequently  received  their  ordination  from  Rome,  nearly  down 
to  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  Dr.  Hook  and  others  wish 
to  get  over  this  point,  and  so  to  shun  the  abominations  of 
the  bishops  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  middle  ages. 
The  evidence  is  flatly  against  them.     Consequently — 

The  SCHISMS  of  the  popedom  are  another  proof  of  the 
impossibility  of  tracing  this  "  unbroken  line"  from  Peter, 
Some  of  the  Popish  historians  themselves,  Onuphrius 
Panvinius  for  instance,  grant  that  there  had  been  above 
twenty  schisms  in  the  popedom  before  the  end  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  Some  of  these  schisms  continued  im  forty 
years,  and  some  longer.  Sometimes  ybt^r  pretenders  to  the 
popedom  existed  at  the  same  time  ;  and  the  whole  church, 
the  whole  of  Europe,  was  equally  divided  against  itself. 
Now  when  two,  three,  or  four  pretended  bishops  of  Rome 
laid  claim  to  the  chair  at  the  same  time,  it  is  impossible 
that  they  could  all  be  legitimate  claimants  to  the  same 
chair.  It  was  generally  contrived  either  to  depose,  or 
banish,  or  poison,  or  murder,  one  or  more  of  them.  Fre- 
quently the  most  cunning,  the  most  powerful,  the  most 

*  Ann.  Eccles.,  torn,  x,  p.  679,  1603,  as  cited  by  R.  Southey,  Esq., 
in  his  Vindiciae  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae,  p.  389.    Lond.,  1826. 


222       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

warlike,  or  the  most  wicked  of  them,  succeeded  in  deposing 
his  less  cunning,  less  powerful,  less  warlike,  or  less  wicked 
opponent.  For  the  proofs  of  all  that  is  here  said,  let  the 
reader  peruse  Platina's  Lives  of  the  Popes,  Bishop  Jewel's 
Apology,  and  the  "  Defense"  of  that  Apology ;  as  well  as 
many  other  authorities  of  a  like  nature.  Now,  who  can 
trace  the  true  succession,  when  the  u)hole  church  was  divided 
against  itself?  cardinals  against  cardinals,  councils  against 
councils,  and  nations  against  nations  ?  Could  faction,  and 
poison,  and  murder,  and  wars  and  bloodshed,  which  alone 
decided  in  these  schisms,  could  these  settle  the  true  suc- 
cession ?  Answer,  ye  modern  boasters  about  your  spiritual 
descent  through  this  unbroken  line  ! 

Dr.  Wells,  indeed,  says,  "  The  plurality  of  popes  at  the 
same  time  doth  not  in  the  least  prejudice  the  succession  of 
ordination :  and  your  [Mr.  Dowley's]  thinking  otherwise 
is  only  a  proof  of  your  not  knowing,  that  the  same  person 
which  is  not  a  rightful  pope,  yet  may  be  a  rightful  bishop ; 
and,  consequently,  may  have  a  just  right  to  exercise  the 
power  of  ordination,  though  he  may  not  have  a  just  right 
to  exercise  the  papal  authority,  as  received  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.  And  this  consideration  being  of  universal  ex- 
tent, I  purposely  pass  by  others,  which  might  be  urged  in 
reference  to  our  church  in  particular."*  Now,  to  prevent 
any  high  Church  doctor  of  divinity  injuring  the  opinion  of 
his  "  superiority"  over  a  dissenting  teacher,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  give  him  the  following  information : — 

1.  That  the  translation  of  bishops  from  one  see  or 
bishopric  to  another,  w^as  prohibited  by  several  important 
councils;  as  the  council  of  Nice,  can.  15;  council  of 
Antioch,  A.  D.  341,  can.  21  ;  council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D. 
451,  can.  5,  and  several  others.  This,  therefore,  as  a  rule, 
would  prevent  any  individual  previously  a  bishop  from  being 
elected  bishop  or  pope  of  Rome. 

2.  That  for  nearly  a  thousand  years  it  does  not  appear 
that  any  individual,  previously  a  bishop,  was  elected  bishop 
of  Rome.  During  this  time  there  had  been  one  hundred 
bishops,  or  popes  of  Rome,  and  thirteen  schisms  in  the 
popedom ;  that  is,  there  had  been  thirteen  times  two  or 
three  pretenders,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  same  chair  or 

*  Dr.  Wells'  Answer  to  Mr.  Dowley's  Letter,  p.  39,  edit.  1716, 
13mo.    Lond. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  223 

bishopric.  The  man,  therefore,  who  was  a  usurper  as  a 
pope,  was  no  bishop ;  yet  the  succession  comes  through 
these  numerous  usurpers  and  murderers. 

3.  That,  according  to  the  general  principles  of  the 
church,  no  man  can  be  a  bishop  who  was  not  previously  a 
presbyter:  all  others  were  really  no  more  than  laymen. 
The  consecration  of  a  bishop  was  not  ordination  to  the 
Christian  ministry,  but  a  mere  ecclesiastical  ceremony. 
Now,  numbers  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  were  nothing  but 
laymen  at  their  consecration.  They  never  were,  therefore, 
ordained  to  the  Christian  ministry.  They  had  no  Christian 
orders ;  of  course  they  could  not  give  what  they  had  not. 
Yet  the  succession,  the  spiritual  descent  of  ordination, 
comes  through  these  mere  laymen  to  our  high  Church 
clerg\-men ;  and  to  all  who  depend  upon  Popish  succes- 
sion, and  Popish  episcopal  ordinations,  for  the  validity  of 
their  ministry. 

4.  Several  of  these  pretenders  to  the  popedom  being 
nothing  but  presbyters,  were,  after  being  elected  bishops 
of  Rome,  deposed  as  usurpers:  yet  these  mere  usurpers, 
who  never  were  really  bishops,  ordained  several  of  the 
English  bishops  and  archbishops,  who,  according  to 
this  scheme,  continued  for  many  years  to  give  false  orders 
to  the  bishops  and  clergy  in  England.  See  the  twelfth 
section,  and  the  notes  to  the  table  of  bishops  there. 

The  early  history  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  abounds 
in  contradiction ;  the  later  records  are  all  confusion ;  the 
elections  were  frequently  scenes  of  bloodshed;  and  the 
numerous  schisms  about  the  popedom  were  interminable. 
Therefore — 

Historic  evidence  of  an  "unbroken  line  of  descent 
from  Peter"  down  to  the  present  bishops  of  England 
utterly  fails.  The  bold  bravado  is  a  fable  ;  and  is 
discreditable  to  those  who  make  it. 


224  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 


SECTION  XI. 

NULLITY    OF    THE     POPISH    ORDINATIONS CHARACTER     OF 

THE     POPISH     CHURCH,    AND     POPISH     BISHOPS,     BEFORE 
AND   AT    THE    REFORMATION. 

We  have  seen  the  root  of  this  high  Church  scheme 
of  Anglican  Popery  cut  up  in  the  proof  of  the  equality  by 
divine  right  of  all  Christian  ministers  ;  and,  in  the  last 
section,  the  hoast  of  an  unhrohen  line  of  power  to  bind  all 
consciences  to  that  scheme  has  perished  in  the  fire  of 
probation.  Another  point  remains  to  be  a  little  more  dis- 
tinctly examined  :  it  is  the  question  of  the  validity  of  Popish 
ordinations.  The  spiritual  descent  of  our  high  Church 
succession  men  essentially  depends,  among  other  things, 
upon  the  validity  of  Popish  episcopal  ordinations,  before 
and  at  the  Reformation.  We  shall  show  these  Popish 
episcopal  ordinations  to  have  been  no  ordinations  in  a 
Scriptural  sense  ;  to  have  been  null  and  void  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  as  ordinations  to  the  Christian  ministry.  In 
this  section,  we  will  first  give  a  brief  character  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  of  the  bishops  of  Rome,  before  the 
Reformation. 

As  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  reformers,  with 
one  voice,  declared  it  to  be  antichrist,  and  guilty  of 

IDOLATRY. 

The  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England  are  decisive 
as  to  the  views  of  the  English  reformers.  "  Now,  con- 
cerning excessive  decking  of  images  and  idols,  with  paint- 
ing, gilding,  adorning  with  precious  vestures,  pearl  and 
stone,  what  is  it  else,  but  for  the  further  provocation  and 
enticement  to  spiritual  fornication,  to  deck  spiritual  harlots 
most  costly  and  wantonly,  which  the  idolatrous  church 
understandeth  well  enough.  For  she  being  indeed  not 
only  an  harlot,  (as  the  Scripture  calleth  her,)  but  also 
a  foul,  flthy,  old,  withered  harlot,  (for  she  is  indeed  of 
ancient  years,)  and  understanding  her  lack  of  natural  and 
true  beauty,  and  great  loathsomeness  which  of  herself  she 
hath,  doth  (after  the  custom  of  such  harlots)  paint  herself, 
and  deck  and  tire  herself  with  gold,  pearl,  stone,  and  all 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       225 

kinds  of  precious  jewels,  that  she,  shining  with  the  out- 
ward beauty  and  glory  of  them,  may  please  the  foolish 
phantasie  of  fond  lovers,  and  so  entice  them  to  spiritual 
fornication  with  her,  who,  if  they  saw  her,  (I  will  not  say 
naked,)  but  in  simple  apparel,  would  abhor  her  as  the 
foulest  and  filthiest  harlot  that  ever  was  seen  ;  according 
as  appeareth  by  the  description  of  the  garnishing  of  the 
great  strumpet  of  all  strumpets,  the  mother  of  whoredom, 
set  forth  by  St.  John  in  his  Revelation,  who  by  her  glory 
provoked  the  princes  of  the  earth  to  commit  whoredom 
with  her."*  "  Wherefore  it  followeth,  that  there  is  like 
foolishness  and  lewdness  in  decking  of  our  images  as 
GREAT  PUPPETS  FOR  OLD  FOOLS,  like  children,  to  play  the 
wicked  play  of  idolatry,  as  was  before  among  the  ethnicks 
and  gentiles.  Our  churches  stand  full  of  such  great  pup- 
pets, wondrously  decked  and  adorned  ;  garlands  and  coro- 
nets be  set  on  their  heads,  precious  pearls  hanging  about 
their  necks,  their  fingers  shine  with  rings  set  with  precious 
stones,  their  dead  and  stiff  bodies  are  clothed  with  gar- 
ments stiff"  with  gold.  You  would  believe  that  the  images 
of  our  men-saints  were  some  princes  of  Persia  land  with 
their  proud  apparel,  and  the  idols  of  our  women-saints  were 
NICE  and  WELL-TRIMMED  HARLOTS,  tempting  their  para- 
mours to  wantonness :  whereby  the  saints  of  God  are  not 
honoured,  but  most  dishonoured,  and  their  godliness,  sober- 
ness, chastity,  contempt  of  riches,  and  of  the  vanity  of  the 
world,  defaced  and  brought  in  doubt  their  sober  and  godly 
lives.  And  because  the  whole  pageant  must  thoroughly 
be  played,  it  is  not  enough  thus  to  deck  idols,  but  at  last 
come  in  the  priests  themselves,  likewise  decked  with  gold 
and  pearl,  that  they  may  be  meet  servants  for  such  lords 
and  ladies,  and  fit  worshippers  of  such  gods  and  goddesses. 
And  with  a  solemn  pace  they  pass  forth  before  these  golden 
puppets,  3,nd  fall  down  to  the  ground  on  their  marrowbones 
before  these  honourable  idols,  and  then  rising  up  again, 
offer  up  odours  and  incense  unto  them,  to  give  the  people 
an  example  of  double  idolatry,  by  worshipping  not  only 
the  idol,  but  the  gold  and  riches  wherewith  it  is  garnished. 
Which  things  the  most  part  of  our  old  martyrs,  rather  than 
they  would  do,  or  once  kneel,  or  offer  up  one  crumb  of 
incense  before  an  image,  suflfered  most  cruel  and  terrible 

*  Homily  against  Idolatry,  third  part. 
10* 


226        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

deaths,  as  the  histories  of  them  at  large  do  declare."* 
Such  is  the  view  given  by  the  reformers  of  the  Church 
of  England,  ratified  by  convocation,  and  established  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  on  this  point.  See  the 
35th  article.  Dr.  Hook,  the  Oxford  Tract-men,  &c.,  have 
solemnly  subscribed  to  this  article,  declaring  that  the  Ho- 
milies "  contain  godly  and  loholesome  doctrine.^''  And  yet 
these  men  defame  and  hate  the  Reformation  and  the  re- 
formers, despise  the  name  and  the  principles  of  Protest- 
antism, and  openly  declare  their  design  to  form  a 
half-way  house,  a  "  via  7nedia"  between  Popery  and 
Protestantism ! 

Let  us  come  to  the  bishops  of  Rome.  In  the  Common 
Prayer,  as  published  in  the  time  of  Edward  VI.,  the  fol- 
lowing petition  made  part  of  the  litaxNty  : — "  From  the  ty- 
ranny of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  his  detestable  enormi- 
ties, good  Lord  deliver  us."  The  Convocation  at  Dublin, 
1615,  says,  "The  bishop  of  Rome  is  so  far  from  being  the 
supreme  head  of  the  universal  church  of  Christ,  that  his 
works  and  doctrine  do  plainly  discover  him  to  be  the  man  of 
sin,  foretold  in  Holy  Scripture,  whom  the  Lord  shall  con- 
sume with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  abolish  with  the 
brightness  of  his  coming." 

The  reformed  church  of  France,  in  Synodo  Papinsensi, 
article  31,  says,  "Whereas  the  bishop  of  Rome  having 
erected  to  himself  a  monarchy  over  the  Christian  world, 
doth  usurp  a  dominion  over  all  churches  and  pastors  ;  and 
hath  rose  to  such  a  height  of  pride,  as  to  call  himself  God, 
■will  be  adored,  and  all  power  to  be  given  him  in  heaven 
and  earth ;  disposeth  of  all  ecclesiastical  things  ;  defines 
articles  of  faith,  saith  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
the  interpretation  of  it,  to  be  from  him  ;  maketh  merchan- 
dise of  souls,  dispenseth  with  vows  and  oaths  ;  institutes 
new  worships  of  God,  As  also  in  civil  affairs,  treads  upon 
the  lawful  authority  of  the  magistrate,  in  giving,  taking 
away,  translating  of  empires  ;  we  do  believe  and  assert 
him  to  be  the  very  proper  antichrist,  son  of  perdition 
foretold  in  the  word  of  God,  the  scarlet  harlot,  sitting  on 
seven  mountains  in  the  great  city ;  which  hath  obtained  a 
ride  over  the  kings  of  the  earth  :  and  we  do  expect  when 
the  Lord,  according  to  his  promise,  and  as  he  hath  begun, 

*  Homily  against  Idolatry,  third  part. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        227 

will  destroy  him  with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  at 
length  abolish  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming."* 

See,  in  the  same  place,  the  authorities  of  the  Waldenses, 
Wickliffe,  Bishops  Jewel,  Abbot,  Whitgift,  Andrews,  Bil- 
son,  Hall,  Downham,  Moreton,  Davenant,  and  Prideaux; 
also  Hooker,  Arminius,  &c.,  all  declaring  their  belief  that 
the  Church  and  pope  of  Rome  were  antichrist. 

As  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  Rome,  more  distinctly, 
Fox,  the  martyrologist,  says, — "  And  to  begin  first  with 
the  order  and  qualities  of  life,  I  ask  here  of  this  Roman 
clergy,  where  was  this  church  of  theirs  which  now  is,  in 
the  ancient  time  of  the  primitive  Church  of  Rome,  with 
this  pomp  and  pride,  with  this  riches  and  superfluity,  with 
this  gloria  mundi,  and  name  of  cardinals,  with  this  prancing 
dissoluteness  and  whoring  of  the  curtisans,  with  this  extor- 
tion, bribing,  buying  and  selling  of  spiritual  dignities, 
these  annats,  reformations,  procurations,  exactions,  and 
other  practices  for  money,  this  avarice  insatiable,  ambi- 
tion intolerable,  fleshly  filthiness  most  detestable,  barba- 
rousness  and  negligence  in  preaching,  promise  breaking 
faithlessness,  poisoning  and  supplanting  one  another,  with 
such  schisms  and  divisions,  which  never  were  more  seen 
than  in  the  elections  and  court  of  Rome  these  seven 
HUNDRED  YEARS,  with  such  extreme  cruelty,  malice,  and 
tyranny,  in  burning  and  persecuting  their  poor  brethren 
to  death  ?" 

It  would  be  endless  to  enumerate  the  wickedness  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome  :  volumes  m\^i  he  filled  with  the  accounts 
of  them  from  good  authorities.  How  wonderful  it  must 
be  to  a  simple-hearted  Protestant,  accustomed  only  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  to  learn  that  any  persons  call- 
ing themselves  ministers  of  a  Protestant  church,  should 
suppose  that  men  so  monstrously  wicked  should  be  able  to 
communicate  any  spiritual  blessings  or  spiritual  authority 
to  others !  Yet  such  is  the  case  with  a  certain  class  of 
the  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  who  adopt  such 
principles  in  order  to  maintain  the  figment  of  a  personal 
succession  of  episcopal  consecrations,  &c.  This  makes 
it  necessary  to  our  argument,  that  we  produce  some  au- 

*  Certain  discourses  of  Archbishop  Usher's  and  Bishop  Bedell's,  pub- 
lished and  enlarged  by  Nicholas  Bernard,  D.D.,  &c.,  pp.  143,  &c.,  Ismo. 
London,  1659. 


228       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION, 

thorities  to  show  the  true  character  of  the  bishops  of  Rome. 
We  shall  assert  nothing  but  from  authors  of  undisputed  credit. 
1.  Popes  monsters  in  wickedness. — "Pope  Vigilius, 
A.  D.  540,"  says  Howell,  "  wades  to  the  pontifical  throne 
through  his  successors'  [predecessors]  blood."  Platina  says, 
"  that  when  he  was  leaving  Rome  for  Constantinople,  the 
Roman  people  pelted  him  with  sticks  and  stones,  loading 
him  with  curses  and  reproaches  as  he  went  along  :  adding 
this  execration,  'According  to  the  evils  which  thou  hast 
committed  against  the  Roman  people,  may  evil  come  upon 
thy  own  head!'"  He  was  conveyed  to  Constantinople  to 
answer  for  himself.  While  there,  he  was,  in  the  presence 
of  the  empress,  nearly  beaten  to  death.  He  fled  into 
the  temple  of  Euphemia.  "  From  this  he  was  driven  by 
force,  and  was  then  dragged  through  the  whole  city  with 
a  rope  round  his  neck  like  a  thief,"  says  Platina,  "  until  eve- 
ning. He  died  at  Syracuse,  on  his  way  back  to  Rome," 
Pope  Pelagius  was  obliged  to  clear  himself  of  the  suspi- 
cion of  murdering  Vigilius,  by  swearing  his  innocence 
upon  the  crucifix  and  the  gospels.  Howell,  in  this  place, 
"  challenges  the  world  to  produce,  either  from  sacred  or  pro- 
fane story,  any  one  series,  generation,  or  order  of  men  to  this 
day,  that  has  been  guilty  of  such  failings,  weakness,  un- 
steadiness, cruelty,  Sfc,  as  they  have."*  Boniface  HI.  be- 
came pope  A.  D.  606.  This  man  obtained  the  popedom 
of  Phocas,  who  had  murdered  Mauritius,  the  emperor,  and 
had  become  emperor  in  his  place,  Boniface  contended 
with  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  about  the  title  of 
"  universal  bishop."  To  end  this  controversy,  he  obtained 
the  point,  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  alo7ie  should  be  called 
papa  or  pope,  (a  term  before  that  time  common  to  all  bish- 
ops,) and  the  bishops  of  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Anti- 
och,  and  Jerusalem,  were  henceforward  to  be  distinguished 
by  the  name  oi  patriarch.  Here  we  find  the  pope  lording 
it  over  the  whole  church.  Accordingly,  Prideaux  reckons 
this  Boniface  as  x\ie  first  of  what  he  terms  "  usurping  Nim- 
rods ;"  and  the  beginning  of  "  the  kingdom  of  the  beast," 
Rev,  xiii.  So  Flacius  Illyricus,  who  reckons  thirty-nine 
popes  in  this  "  kingdom"  up  to  John  VHI,  Mohammed, 
the  false  prophet,  arose  about  this  time,  along  with  the 
kingdom  of  the  beast,  as  another  curse  to  the  church. 
*  Pontificate,  p.  88, 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        229 

Pope  Constantine,  A.  D.  707,  envied  the  independence 
of  the  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  who  claimed  equality  with 
the  bishop  of  Rome.  Indeed,  the  Popish  historians  grant 
that  the  exarchs  of  Ravenna  had  been  accustomed  even  to 
confirm  the  election  of  the  pope.  By  means,  however,  of 
Justinian,  the  emperor,  Pope  Constantine  obtained  the 
subjugation  of  Felix,  the  archbishop  of  Ravenna.  "  The 
city  was  taken  by  siege,  and  the  archbishop's  eyes  were 
put  out  with  a  red  hot  concave  brazen  vessel.'''' 

The  popes  Constantine,  Gregory  II.,  &c.,  distinguished 
themselves  in  favour  oiimage  worship.  In  this  controversy, 
they  excommunicated  the  emperors  of  the  East ;  forbade 
their  subjects  to  pay  the  accustomed  taxes  or  tribute  ;  and 
actually  severed  the  states  of  the  West  from  their  allegi- 
ance to  the  emperor.  They  then  managed  to  set  the  sub- 
ordinate governors  of  the  West  against  each  other,  in  order 
to  destroy  all  that  opposed  their  ambitious  schemes.  All 
the  facts  of  the  case  are  acknowledged  and  defended  by 
Platina  and  Ciaconius.  In  this  way  they  managed  to 
have  the  exarchate  of  Ravenna  destroyed,  because  the  ex- 
arch and  the  archbishop  withstood  the  ambition  of  the 
pope  and  Church  of  Rome.  The  king  and  kingdom  of 
Lombardy  shared  the  same  fate :  and  most  of  the  cities 
and  territories  of  these  states  were  given,  by  the  governors 
of  France,  to  the  pope  ;  and  the  pope  (Leo  III.)  in  return, 
set  up  Charles  the  Great,  or  Charlemagne,  as  emperor  of 
the  West,  for  the  professed  purpose  of  making  him  the 
defender  of  the  popedom ;  so  says  Ciaconius.*  What  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles  !  dethroning  sovereigns,  and  setting 
up  others  against  them  ;  encouraging  their  subjects  in  rebel- 
lion ;  prohibiting  custom  ;  destroying  kingdoms,  and  spread- 
ing war  and  bloodshed  throughout  Europe,  to  gratify  their 
own  ambition,  and  for  the  purpose  of  defending  the  wor- 
shipping of  images :  and  this  at  the  very  time  when  the 
Mohammedan  conquerors  were  making  this  image  worship 
a  ground  of  the  devastations  they  were  bringing  upon  the 
Christian  church  at  large  ! 

We  now  come  to  the  history  of  Pope  Joan.  Some 
learned  Protestants  have  good  naturedly  given  up  this  his- 
tory :  and  we  are  not  going  to  contend  about  it.  Yet  we 
may  say,  without  any  fear  of  contradiction,  that  Papists 
*  Page  226,  ed.  Romae,  I60L 


230        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

hold  a  thousand  things  as  true,  for  which  they  have  not 
half  the  evidence  that  there  is  for  they«c^,  that  there  actu- 
ally was  A  FEMALE  in  disguise  elected  and  confirmed  as 
Pope  John  VIII. ;  "  that,"  says  Platina,  "  she  became 
with  child  by  some  of  those  about  her  ;  and  that  she  ?nis- 
carried  and  died  in  her  way  to  the  Lateran  church,  or 
temple."  Platina  says,  also,  that  her  "  pontificate  lasted 
one  year,  one  month,  and  four  days."  He  remarks  that 
the  authors  who  state  these  things  were  obscure;  yet  he 
acknowledges  that,  in  his  day,  "  almost  every  body  affirmed 
them  to  be  true^'' — '■'-fere  omnes  affirmant.^''  Prideaux  de- 
clares that  there  are  fifty  authorities  belonging  to  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  favour  of  it.  Flacius  lUyricus  gives 
authorities  at  considerable  length ;  and  shows,  from  the 
testimonies  of  authors  living  near  the  times,  and  hence- 
forward for  several  hundreds  of  years,  that  during  that 
time  it  was  never  doubted ;  and  the  authors  who  mention 
it  were  Italiaiis,  relatives  of  popes,  &c.*  If  half  of  the 
history  of  Popery,  then,  has  any  truth  in  it,  there  was 
really  a  female  strumpet,  as  a  link  in  this  chain,  as  a  jyro- 
genitrix  in  this  spiritual  descent  of  Popish  priests,  Oxford 
Tract-men,  Dr.  Hook,  &c. ! ! 

Martin  II.,  A.  D.  883,  raises  a  sedition,  it  is  said, 
against  Pope  John,  throv/s  him  into  chains,  and  forces  him 
to  flee  for  his  life.  Hadrian  III.,  A.  D.  884,  "  was  a  per- 
son of  great  promise,"  says  Ciaconius,  "  but  was  taken 
away  by  Heaven  to  make  way  for  the  degenerate  popes 
who  followed,  and  who  were  sent  as  a  judgment  for  the 
abounding  sins  of  the  people,  and  the  world,  at  that  time." 
What  a  holy  line !  Stephen  VI.,  Howell  says,  is  called 
by  Labbe,  the  celebrated  editor  of  the  Councils,  "  the  most 
wicked  of  men  ;  and  that  he  is  reckoned  in  the  Papal 
Catalogue," — the  succession, — "to  prevent  the  danger  of 
schism."  "  But,"  says  Labbe,  "  though  Pope  Stephen 
was  so  icicked  a  man,  the  heretics  ought  not  to  insult  us 
against  the  promise  of  Christ  made  to  St.  Peter  and  his 
church  ;  for  all  that  Stephen  said  or  did  against  Pope  For- 
mosus,  were  mere  acts  oi  phrenzy  or  fury ;  but  as  he  was 
lawfully  invested  with  the  pontifical  authority,  he  could 
not  err  against  the  faith  and  good  morals.''  The  pontifical 
authority,  then,  is  authority  to  be  the  wickedest  of  men,  with- 
*  See  Catalogus  Testium  Veritatis,  vol.  ii,  pp.  179-189,  ed.  1597. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        231 

out  ERRiXG  Rga.mst  faith  and  good  morals  !     What  words 
can  describe  the  abominations  of  this  system  ! ! 

Theodorus  II.  is  represented  by  Platina  as  "  seditious  ;" 
John  X.  as  "  idle  and  worthless  ;^^  and  the  rest,  then  abouts, 
as  "  lascivious"  Christopher  throws  his  predecessors  into 
prison,  with  great  tumult,  sedition,  and  the  loss  of  many 
lives.  "  In  so  vitious  a  state,"  says  Platina,  "  was  the 
pontifical  authority  then,  that  a  private  person  could,  by 
violence  and  faction,  seize  it  in  a  moment."  He  calls  this 
pope  Christopher  "  a  wolf^  The  short  lives  of  many  of 
the  popes  about  this  time  he  interprets  as  a  proof  that 
God,  in  judgment,  removed  them  quickly,  as  "  certain 
MONSTERS — tanquam  monstra  qumdam,"  out  of  the  way. 
Platina  says  that  Clement  II.,  A.  D.  1048,  "  w^s  poisoned 
with  poison,  prepared,  as  it  was  supposed,  by  his  suc- 
cessor. Pope  Damasus  II."*  "This  Damasus,"  says  he, 
"  invaded  the  chair  by  force.  And  this  had  become  so 
ESTABLISHED  A  CUSTOM  that  any  ambitious  individual  had 
the  liberty  of  invading  Petej-'s  seat.^j  Here  are  apostoli- 
cal successors !  And  even  earlier  than  this,  in  the  life  of 
Benedict  IV.,  A.  D.  898,  he  says,  "  the  chair  of  Peter 
was  USURPED,  rather  than  possessed  by,  monsters  of 
WICKEDNESS,  ambitiou  and  briber}'."  The  whole  passage 
is  instructive,  and  deserves  insertion.  Speaking  about 
the  decline  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  the  decay  of  its 
glory,  through  idleness  and  effeminacy,  brought  in  by 
luxury,  he  says,  "  the  same  thing  happened  to  the  Papal 
dignity.  The  glory  of  the  popedom  was  acquired  by  holiness 
of  life,  and  the  purity  of  doctrine  of  the  bishops  of  Rome, 
accompanied  with  the  severest  toils,  and  the  most  consum- 
mate virtue,  in  their  proceedings  :  by  these  means,  and 
without  the  wealth  and  pomp  of  the  world,  it  daily 
increased  amidst  the  most  hostile  and  obstinate  persecutors 
of  the  Christian  name  :  but  as  soon  as  the  church  began 
to  wanton  with  wealth,  her  members  forsaking  their  former 
strictness  of  living,  turned  to  a  general  licentiousness  of 
conduct.  All  civil  restraint  being  removed,  a  general 
license  of  sinning  everywhere  prevailed.  Hence  these 
monsters  of  wickedness,  by  whom  the  most  holy  chair 
of  Peter  was,  through  their  intrigues  and  bribes,  rather 
usurped  than  possessed." 

*  Platina  in  Vita  Clem.  II.  t  In  Vita  Dam.  II. 


232        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Sergius  III.,  A.  D.  903,  "rescinded  the  acts  of  Pope 
Formosus,  compelled  those  whom  he  had  ordained  to  be 
reordained,  dragged  his  dead  body  from  the  sepulchre,  be- 
headed him  as  though  he  were  alive,  and  then  threw  him  into 
the  Tiber ! — See,"  says  Platina,  "  what  a  degenerate  race  ! 
They  seek  the  pontificate  by  bribes,  and  ha^dng  obtained  it, 
they  cast  behind  them  all  regard  to  the  loorship  of  God,  and 
contending  with  each  other  like  the  most  ferocious  tyrants, 
that  they  may  reign  alone  :  afterward,  none  being  left  that 
can  restrain  them,  they  give  themselves  up  to  take  their 
fill  in  voluptuousness  and  licentiousness.'"* 

A.  D.  931.  "  The  next,"  says  Howell,  "  that  takes  the 
chair,  is  one  whom  they  ought  to  call  a  devil,  instead  of 
pseudo-pope  ;  and  yet  he  must  be  inserted  in  the  Catalogue 
of  the  Popes  ;  though,  according  to  their  own  confession, 
the  vilest,  blackest  monster  that  ever  yet  defiled  the  holy 
purple.  This  was  Pope  John  IX.,  son  of  Pope  Sergius  III., 
by  the  strumpet  Marozia,  (a  blessed  stock  to  take  an  infal- 
lible guide  from,)  by  whose  means  he  was  intruded  into 
the  place  of  Stephen  VII.,  though  besides  all  other  impe- 
diments, he  was  incapable  of  that  high  office  in  the  church 
through  want  of  years.  This  pontificate  was  a  series  of 
debaucheries,  incest,  &c.,  which  would  offend  the  modest 
reader  to  repeat."! 

"  John  XIII.,"  I  quote  Platina,  "  usurped  th.Q  pontificate. 
From  his  youth  up  he  had  been  contaminated  with  every 
vice,  and  all  iniquity ;  and  if  any  of  his  time  was  spared 
from  his  libidinous  pursuits,  it  was  rather  given  to  hunting 
than  to  prayer.  A  council  of  the  bishops  of  Italy  was 
called  by  the  emperor  that  they  might  judge  of  the  life  of 
this  MOST  wicked  of  men.  The  pope,  fearing  the  judgment 
of  right-minded  men,  flies  into  the  forest,  and  lies  hid  for 
some  time  in  the  woods,  like  a  wild  beast.  The  emperor 
departing,  his  friends  recall  him,  [the  pope,]  but  he  is  sup- 
posed to  have  perished  by  the  judgment  of  God,  lest  the 
church  should  be  ruined  by  the  sedition  arising  on  the 
subject.  Some  say  that  this  rnost  iniquitous  man,  or  mon- 
ster rather,  perished  by  being  stabbed  as  taken  in  the  act 
of  adultery.''^  Such  is  Platina's  account  of  this  progenitor 
of  high  Church  bishops  and  priests  ! ! 

The  scene  becomes  darker  still  through  the  following 
*  Vita  Sergii.  III.  f  Pontificate,  p.  188. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       233 

centuries.  But  the  reader  has  had  enough  for  proof  of  the 
point  before  us.  It  would  be  tedious  and  disgusting  to 
wade  through  the  filth  of  their  proceedings.  Platina,  as 
we  have  seen,  expressly  calls  some  of  them  "  monsters  ;" 
and  says,  "  they  left  no  wickedness  unpractised."  Pope 
Sixtus  IV.  licensed  brothels  at  Rome.  Pope  Alexander 
VI.,  A.  D.  1492,  is  thus  designated  by  Howell: — "We 
are  now  come  to  one  of  the  greatest  and  horrihlest  monsters 
in  nature  that  could  scandalize  the  holy  chair.  His  beastly 
morals,  his  immense  ambition,  his  insatiable  avarice,  his 
detestable  cruelty,  his  furious  lusts,  and  monstrous  incest 
with  his  daughter  Lucretia,  are  at  large  described  by 
Guiccardine,  Ciaconius,  &c."*  He  that  wishes  to  see 
more,  may  be  wearied  with  the  detail  in  the  authorities 
mentioned;  and  also  in  Bishop  Jewel's  Apology  and  his 
Defence. 

Popes  heretics. — Indeed,  if  ever  there  were  any  here- 
tics I  think  it  would  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  whole 
popedom  is  one  continued  heresy.  To  be  sure  the 
Church  of  Rome  has  always  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity:  so  have  thousands  who  have  been  denominated 
heretics.  But  while  the  Church  of  Rome  has  held  that 
glorious  doctrine  in  words,  it  has  maintained  in  word  and 
deed  so  many  pernicious  errors  along  with  it;  and  has 
given  such  paramount  importance  to  these  errors,  as  by 
them  to  corrupt  the  whole  gospel.  The  popedom  has  been 
the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  and  antichrist ;  the 
Church  of  Rome  has  been  the  "  great  whore'''  which  has 
corrupted  the  nations  :  this  has  been  the  solemn  view  of 
those  best  acquainted  with  the  subject.  The  smatterers, 
and  sciolists,  and  credulists,  and  liberalists  of  our  day  are 
schoolboys  compared  with  such  men.  They  are  the 
betrayers  of  Protestanism.  They  are  more  allied  in  spirit 
to  Babylon  than  they  are  to  the  New  Jerusalem. 

The  Papists  acknowledge  that  Pope  Liberius  subscribed 
Arianism,  communicated  with  Arians,  and  consented  to  the 
banishment  of  Athanasius — ^that  he  unhappily  and  basely 
fellj — that  Athanasius,  Hilary,  and  Jerome,  all  counted 
him  a  heretic,  is  acknowledged  by  Morinus,  De  Ordina- 
tionibus,  part  ii,  p. 284.  Pope  Marcellinus  sacrificed  to  idols. 

*  Pontificate,  pp.  .512-514. 

t  Vid.  Howell's  Pontificate,  p.  43. 


234       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

"  He  denied  the  fact,"  says  Cabassute,  "  until  he  was  con- 
victed on  indubitable  evidence."  Seventy-two  witnesses 
testified  to  the  fact.  They  say  it  was  through  fear  that  he 
did  it,  in  a  time  of  persecution  ;  but  so  many  things  have 
been  fabricated  to  wipe  off  this  stain,  that  one  can  be  sure 
of  nothing  about  them.  Here,  on  the  heresy  of  the  popes, 
I  will  quote  Bishop  Jewel :  "  Pope  Honorius  was  con- 
demned for  a  heretic  in  ivio  general  councils.  In  the  coun- 
cil of  Constantinople,  the  words  of  his  condemnation  be 
alleged  thus  :  '  We  have  caused  Honorius,  the  late  pope 
of  old  Rome,  to  be  accursed :  for  that  in  all  things  he  follow- 
ed the  mind  of  Sergius,  the  heretic,  and  confirmed  his 
wicked  doctrines.'  In  the  very  legend  of  Hilarius,  it  is 
mer.noncd  that  Pope  Leo  was  an  Arian  heretic.  In  a  synod 
holden  at  Rome  against  Pope  Hildebrand,  it  is  written  thus : 
'  Incendio  tradidimus  Decreta  eorum  HcBretica  ;' — '  We  have 
burnt  their  heretical  decrees.'  Pope  Sylvester  II.  was 
made  pope  by  necromancy,  and  in  recompense  thereof, 
promised  both  body  and  soul  unto  the  devil.  The  council 
of  Basil  condemneth  Pope  Eugenius  by  these  words  :  '  We 
condemn  and  depose  Pope  Eugenius,  a  despiser  of  the  holy 
canons  ;  a  disturber  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  churdfi 
of  God ;  a  notorious  offender  of  the  whole  universal 
church  ;  a  simonist ;  a  forsworn  man,  {perjurum  ;)  a  man 
uncorrigible  ;  a  schismatic  ;  a  man  fallen  from  the  faith, 
and  a  wilful  heretic'  Now  if  idolaters,  Montanists,  Arians, 
Monothelites,  Nestorians,  deniers  of  the  immortality,  si- 
monists,  sorcerers,  maintainors  of  filthiness,  and  other 
obstinate  and  wilful  heretics  may  err,  then — it  is  easily 
seen  that  the  pope  may  err." 

''  Verily  the  council  of  Basil  saith  thus  :  '  It  is  reported 
and  read  that  many  popes  have  fallen  into  errors  and  here- 
sies :  it  is  certain  that  the  popes  may  err :  the  council 
hath  oftentimes  condemned  and  removed  the  pope,  in 
respect  as  well  of  his  heresy  in  faith,  as  of  his  lewdness 
in  life.'"* 

Popes  simoniacs. — The  evidence  of  this  wowlA  fill  a 
volume.  Platina  states  it  repeatedly,  that  the  pontificate 
was  obtained   by  the  basest   purchase. f     Dr.  Whitby 

*  Defence  of  the  Apology,  part  vi,  p.  536,  &c.,  ed.  1609. 
t  Vid.  Platina  de  Vitis.  Pontif.,  pp.  75,  79,  88,  103,  125,  126,  137, 
139,  143,  147,  149,  &c.,  &c.,  fol.  ed.    Colon.,  1562. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        235 

gives  the  following  authorities  as  to  the  eleventh  century : 
"  Glaber,  the  monk,  informs  us,  that  the  emperor,  Henry 
II.,  having  convened  all  his  archbishops  and  bishops  in 
France  and  Germany,  told  them,  '  that  all  ecclesiastical  de- 
grees, even  from  the  popedom  to  the  doorkeepers,  Vere  op- 
pressed with  damnable  simony,  and  that  this  spiritual  rohhery 
obtained  in  all  places ;  and  that  the  bishops,  not  being 
able  to  deny  this  charge,  fled  to  the  emperor's  mercy, 
who  said  to  them.  Go  your  way,  and  what  you  have  un- 
lawfully obtained,  endeavour  to  dispose  of  well.'  " 

"  Century  12. — St.  Bernard,  in  his  commentary  on 
Psalm  xix,  saith,  '  that  the  offices  of  ecclesiastical  dignity 
are  turned  inio  filthy  lucre  and  a  work  of  darkness.''  In  his 
oration  of  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul,  he  adds,  '  that  now 
all  ecclesiastical  degrees  are  given  as  an  occasion  oi  filthy 
lucre?  In  his  Book  of  Considerations,  written  to  Pope 
Eugenius,  he  insinuates,  that  '  ambitious,  covetous,  sacri- 
legious, simoniacal,  incestuous  persons,  fornicators,  and  such 
like  monsters  of  mankind,  fiowed  from  all  parts  of  the  world 
to  Rome,  that  by  the  apostolical  authority  they  either  might 
obtain,  or  keep  ecclesiastical  honours,'  and  puts  this  ques- 
tion to  the  pope,  '  Who  is  there  of  that  whole  great  city, 
who  received  thee  as  a  pope,  without  the  intervention  of 
some  price,  or  hopes  of  some  price?''  '  these,'  saith  he,  'are 
rather  pastors  of  devils,  than  of  sheep.'  " 

"  Cextury  13. — Matthew  Paris,  speaking  of  the  mis- 
erable state  of  the  Church  of  England,  saith,  '  then  simony 
was  committed  without  shame.'  " 

"  Century  14. — Marsilius  of  Padua,  saith,  '  that  men 
ignorant  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  undisciplined,  and  notori- 
ously criminal,  were  placed  in  the  highest  thrones  of  the 
church  hy  simony :  that  they  who  have  visited  the  Church 
of  Rome,  may  see  plainly,  and  they  who  were  never  there, 
may  learn  from  an  infinite  number  of  men  of  credit,  that  it 
is  become  a  receptacle  of  all  rogues  and  trickers,  for  all 
wares  both  spiritual  and  temporal.  For  what  is  there  but 
a  ••oncourse  of  simoniacs  from  all  places.'  "* 

Prideaux,  whose  work  was  revised  and  published  by  his 
uncle,  the  learned  bishop  of  Worcester,  numbers  among 
the  popes  "  thirty-eight  usurping  Nimrods ;  forty  luxurious 
Sodomites ;    forty  Egyptian  magicians;  forty-one  devour- 

*  Whitby's  Sermons,  No.  11,  Appendix,  8vo. 


236        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ing  Ahaddons  ;  twenty  incurable  Babylonians.''''*  Prideaux 
was  a  stanch  Churchman.  A  few  extracts  from  him  will 
show  the  reader  his  opinion  more  in  detail.  We  have 
seen  that  he  acknowledges  "  no  certainty  is  to  be  had"  as 
to  the  personal  succession  of  the  early  bishops  of  Rome  ; 
and,  in  the  close  of  section  3,  he  asks,  "  whether  that  suc- 
cession may  conduce  to  the  pope's  supremacy,  which 
faultereth  and  faileth  in  the  first  foundation  ?"  Dr. 
Hook  keeps  hold  of  Rome  up  to  Vitalianus.  Now  it  is 
somewhat  ominous  that  Vitalianus  is  the  very  pope  in 
whose  reign,  as  Prideaux  remarks,  the  number  of  the  beast, 
666,  was  completed.  His  words  are  : — "  Theodorus,  a 
Greek,  and  one  Hadrian,  an  African,  are  sent  hither  into 
England  by  him  to  bring  in  the  Latin  service,  being  the 
year  QQQ,  just  the  number  of  the  beast  ;  of  which  the  word 
Xareivoq  and  enKXeaia  iraXiKa  (by  Baleus's  reckoning) 
give  a  shrewd  account."  This  Theodore  was  made  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  and  brought  into  England  the 
service  of  the  beast,  if  Prideaux  and  Bale  were  right. 
Through  him  Dr.  Hook  traces  his  spiritual  descent.  "  Here, 
about  the  year  QQQ,  (the  number  of  the  apocalyptical  beast,) 
Phocas,  the  parricide,  that  slew  his  master  Mauritius  ; 
Boniface,  [pope,]  the  purchaser  of  supremacy  of  that  vil- 
lain by  simony ;  and  Mohammed,  the  grand  impostor,  break 
forth  together."!  "  Boniface  VII,"  Baronius  saith,  "  was 
rather  a  thief,  a  murderer,  and  a  traitor  to  his  coun- 
try, than  a  pope."|  His  inquiries  at  the  end  of  section  7, 
are  such  as  the  following  : — "  Whether  Marozia's  and  her 
daughter's  pope-mahing  discovereth  not  the  skirt  of  the 
whore  of  Babylon  ?  AVhether  bastards,  bribers,  and  atheists 
may  be  acknowledged  for  Christ's  vicars,  or  St.  Peter's 
successors  ?  Whether  Boniface  VII.,  robbing  the  church 
treasury,  and  purchasing  with  it  afterward  the  popedom, 
which  he  had  forfeited,  include  not  in  it  sacrilege  and 
simony  .^"'^  Again  :  "  Now  comes  Hildebrand,  the  Hetru- 
rian,  (A.  D.  1075,)  under  the  name  of  Gregory  VII.,  with- 
out any  election  of  emperors  or  clergy,  but  only  by  his 
own  intrusion.  He  had  poisoned  some  six  or  seven  popes, 
by  Brazutus,  before  he  could  get  the  popedom  himself." || 
In  concluding  section  8, — "  In  the  compass  of  this  period 

*  Introduction  for  reading  Histories,  p.  67.         t  Page  99. 
%  Page  108.  ^  Page  110.  1!  Pages  117,  118. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       237 

are  found,  besides  a  knot  of  conjurors,  and  poisoners,  a 
crew  of  devilish  rebels,  abusing  religion  to  varnish  their 
damnable  designs."*^  Maximilian,  (A.  D.  1510,)  the  empe- 
ror, was  wont  to  say,  "  O  eternal  God,  if  thou  shouldest 
not  watch  over  us,  how  ill  would  it  go  with  the  world 
which  we  govern  ?  I,  a  miserable  hunter,  and  that  drunk- 
ard and  wicked  [pope]  Julius^* 

Such  are  the  men,  "  the  monsters"  who,  according  to 
the  principles  of  Popery,  are  "  the  rock"  upon  which  the 
church  of  Christ  is  built,  and  against  it,  as  so  built,  the 
gates  of  hell  are  never  to  prevail ; — such  are  the  men, 
'■'■Xh.e  monsters,"  who  are  believed  to  be  the  successors  of 
St.  Peter,  and  the  vicars  of  Christ,  to  which  monsters 
Popery  says,  Christ  has  given  supreme  power  over  the 
whole  church  upon  earth ; — such  are  the  men,  "  the  mon- 
sters," through  whom  our  high  Churchmen  trace  their 
spiritual  descent  I     Their  glory  is  their  shame. 


SECTION  XII. 

POPISH    ORDINATIONS     OF    ENGLISH    BISHOPS    BEFORE    THE 
REFORMATION. 

The  reader  will  keep  in  mind  that  the  particular  point 
now  before  us  is,  the  nullity  of  Popish  ordinations  of 
English  bishops  before  the  Reformation.  In  the  last  sec- 
tion was  exhibited  a  brief  view  of  the  monstrous  wicked- 
ness, heresy,  and  simony  of  the  popes  themselves.  The 
popes  were  the  head  and  origin  of  episcopacy  in  those 
times.  The  master  of  the  house  at  that  time  was,  indeed, 
Beelzebub  ;  what  then  was  his  household,  the  bishops 
under  him,  and  derived  from  him?  In  this  section  we 
shall  show  that  the  episcopal  ordinations  in  the  English 
Church  came  through  this  "series  of  monsters,"  the  popes 
of  Rome.  Sometimes  this  is  denied ;  and  an  attempt  is 
made  to  claim  a  better  line  of  succession  through  the  an- 
cient British  bishops.  We  shall  briefly  state  the  matter 
of  the  British  bishops,  and  then  pass  on  to  the  proof  of 
the  point  proposed  in  this  section. 
*  Page  143. 


238       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

The  first  planting  of  Christianity  in  Great  Britain  is 
involved  in  impenetrable  obscurity.  The  earliest  authen- 
tic mention  of  bishops  in  Greg,t  Britain  is  A.D.  359.  The 
Saxons  came  over  about  A.  D.  450.  They  were  enemies 
to  Christianity,  and  established  idolatry  on  its  rdins  in  a 
great  part  of  the  island.  Gildas  (who  wrote  about  A.  D. 
564)  gives  a  shocking  account  of  the  wickedness  of  all 
ranks,  and  of  the  misery  of  the  country  in  his  days.  He 
speaks  of  "  bishops  or  presbyters,"  several  times.  It  is 
somewhat  remarkable,  that  he  never,  I  believe,  uses  the 
conjunction  copulative,  and;  but  always,  I  think,  the  dis- 
junctive, or — "  bishops  or  presbyters,"  as  though  at  that 
time,  in  England,  one  was  understood  to  imply  the  other. 
The  English  reformers,  in  their  account  of  the  divine  in- 
stitution of  bishops  and  priests,  frequently  do  the  same ; 
and  expressly  declare,  individually,  that  they  believe  them 
to  be  one  and  the  same  office.  Whatever  they  were  in 
Gildas's  time,  none  need  covet  succession  from  them. 
Gildas  expressly  calls  them— the  whole  priesthood — "  chil- 
dren of  the  devil,  who  had  merely  the  name  of  priests,  hut 
whose  ojffice,  vilely  bought,  never  could  benefit  any ;  whose 
blessing  was  a  curse ;  and  whose  basely-bought  ordination 
was  a  devilish  delusion!'^*  But  these  are  not  the  British 
bishops  alluded  to.  The  bishops  intended  in  this  question 
derived  their  ordination  from  Columba  and  his  coadjutors. 
The  most  authentic  history,  and  indeed  almost  the  only 
authentic  history,  of  these  bishops,  is  found  in  Bede's 
Church  History  of  those  times.  Bede  was  an  English- 
man, and  wrote  about  A.D.  731.  The  following  is  the 
statement  he  gives  us  about  Columba  and  his  coadjutors  : — 
"  Columba  was  the  first  preacher  of  Christ's  faith  to  the 
Pictes,  dwelling  beyonde  the  greate  mountaines  northward, 
and  the  first  founder  of  a  monastery  in  the  He  Hu,  which 
was  had  in  great  reverence  and  estimation  a  long  time, 
both  of  the  Scottes  [that  is,  Irish]  and  of  the  Pictes. "f 
*'  Columban  came  to  Britannie  when  the  most  puissaunt 
King  Bride,  Meilocheus's  sonne,  reigned  over  the  Red- 
shanks [Picts]  in  the  ninth  yere  of  his  raigne,  and  did  by 

*  Gildas  de  Excidio  Brit.,  pp.  72,  &c.    Lond.,  1838. 

t  Bede's  Church  History,  b.  v,  chap.  10,  Dr.  Stapleton's  transla- 
tion, printed  at  St.  Omers,  1622,  12mo.  For  proofs  that  the  terra 
Scots  meant  the  Irish,  see  Bishops  Usher  and  Lloyd. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       239 

his  learning  and  example  of  life  coniiert  that  nation  to  the 
faith  of  Christ,  in  consideration  whereof  the  aforesaide  He 
was  geuen  him  in  possession  to  make  a  monasterie ;  for 
the  lie  is  not  greate,  but  as  though  it  were  fiue  families  by 
estimation.  His  successours  kepe  it  until  this  day,  where 
also  he  lieth  buried,  dying  at  the  age  of  77  yeres,  about 
thirty-two  yeres  after  that  he  came  into  Britanny  to  preach. 
But  before  that  he  travailed  to  Britannie,  he  made  a  famous 
monasterie  in  Ireland,  which  for  the  great  store  of  okes, 
is  in  the  Scottish  [Irish]  tong  called  Deannach ;  that  is  to 
say,  a  filde  of  okes  :  of  both  which  monasteries  very  many 
more  religious  houses  were  afterward  erected  by  his  scho- 
lars, both  in  Britannie,  and  also  in  Ireland,  of  all  which, 
the  same  abbey  that  is  in  the  He  where  in  his  bodie  lieth 
buried,  is  the  head  house.  This  He  is  alwayes  wont  to 
haue  an  abbot  that  is  a  priest  [presbyter]  to  be  the  ruler  : 
to  whom  both  the  wholle  countrey,  and  also  the  bishops 
themselves,  ought,. after  a  strannge  and  unaccustomed  order, 
to  he  subiect,  according  to  the  example  of  the  first  teacher, 
who  was  NO  bishop,  but  a  priest  [presbyter']  and  monke."* 
"  The  report  is,  that  when  King  Oswald  desired  first  to 
haue  a  prelate  out  of  Scotland,"  (the  province  of  the 
Scots  or  Irish,)  "  who  might  preach  the  faith  to  him  and 
his  people,  an  other  man  of  a  more  austere  stomacke  was 
first  sent :  who,  when  after  a  litell  while  preaching  to  the 
English  nacion,  he  did  nothing  prevaile,  nor  yet  was  wil» 
lingly  heard  of  the  people,  he  returned  into  his  countrey, 
and  in  the  assembly  of  the  elders  he  made  relacion,  how 
that  in  his  teaching  he  could  do  the  people  no  good  to 
whom  he  was  sent,  for  as  much  as  they  were  folks  that 
could  not  be  reclaymed,  of  a  hard  capacitie,  and  fierce  of 
nature.  Then  the  elders  (as  they  say)  began  in  cousaile 
to  treate  at  large  what  were  best  to  be  done,  being  no  lesse 
desyrous  that  the  people  should  attayne  the  saluation  which 
they  sought  for,  then  sory  that  the  preacher  whom  they 
sent  was  not  receiued.  When  Aidan  (for  he  also  was 
present  at  the  counsaile)  replyed  against  the  priest  of 
whom  I  spake,  saying,  '  Me  thinkes,  brother,  that  you 
haue  bene  more  rigorous  then  reason  would  with  that  un- 
learned audience,  and  that  you  haue  not,  according  to  the 
apostle's  instruction,  first  giuen  them  milke  of  milde  doc- 
*  Book  iii,  chap.  4. 


240       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

trine,  vntill  being  by  litle  and  litle  nourished  and  weaned 
with  the  worde  of  God,  they  were  able  to  vnderstand  the 
more  perfect  misteries,  and  fulfill  the  greater  commande- 
ments  of  God.'  This  being  sayed,  al  that  were  at  the 
assembly,  looking  vpon  Aidan,  pondered  diligentlie  his 
saying,  and  concluded  that  he  aboue  the  rest  was  worthie 
of  that  charge  and  hishopricke,  and  that  he  should  be  sent 
to  instruct  those  vnlearned  paynims :  for  he  was  founde 
to  be  chiefely  adorned  with  the  grace  of  discretion,  the 
mother  of  all  vertues.  Thus  making  him  bishop,  they 
sent  him  forth  to  preach — sic  que  ilium  ordinantes  ad  prcB- 
dicandum  miseruntP* 

Such  is  the  account  in  Bede.  From  this  the  reader 
will  observe,  that  the  abbot  in  Columban's  time  was  a 
presbyter,  and  no  bishop  ;  that  this  presbyter  was  the  ruler 
of  the  monastery  ;  that  to  this  presbyter  "  the  whole  coun- 
try, and  also  the  bishops  themselves,  ought,  after  a  strange 
and  unaccustomed  order,  to  be  subject^  Again,  he  will 
remark,  that,  in  Aidan's  being  made  bishop,  the  thing  is 
done  by  a  company  of  seniors,  elders,  or  presbyters. 
This  company  sent  another  person  as  a  prelate  before 
Aidan,  who  had  little  or  no  success.  He  returned  into 
the  convent.  His  conduct  becomes  the  subject  of  delibe- 
ration and  debate;  and  Aidan,  one  of  the  counsel,  before 
he  himself  was  bishop,  reads  him  a  lecture  on  his  mis- 
management— a  proof  that  he  considered  himself  at  least 
his  equal  in  authority  and  jurisdiction.  He  addresses  hitn 
also  as  a  mere  "  priest"  or  presbyter — his  office  of  bishop 
having  expired,  it  seems,  on  his  failing  in  the  mission  for 
which  they  had  given  it  him.  The  other  part  of  the  elders, 
pleased  with  the  piety  and  discretion  of  Aidan,  immediately 
determine  that  he  should  be  sent  forth  on  this  mission  in- 
stead of  the  former,  to  instruct  the  ignorant  and  unlearned, 
"  and  THUS  ordaining  him,  they  sent  him  forth  to  preach — 
SIC  que  illu7n  ordinantes  ad  pr(Bdicandu?n  miserunt.^^  Now 
the  inquiry  is,  who  ordained  and  sent  forth  Aidan  to 
preach  ?  "  Who  !"  the  unbiased  reader  will  reply — "  well, 
the  company  of  seniors,  elders,  or  presbyters,  to  be  sure! 
for  they  are  the  persons,  and  they  only,  of  whom  Bede 
speaks  in  the  passage."  So  we  think  the  reply  must  ever 
be  made  by  every  unprejudiced  reader  of  Bede.  There  is 
*  Book  iii,  chap.  5. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       241 

not  a  syllable  about  any  bishop  or  bishops  being  required, 
with  some  authority  and  power  superlatively  above  these 
seniors,  and  without  which  it  would  have  been  sacrilege 
to  ordain  Aidan  bishop.  There  is  nothing  in  the  history 
of  these  monasteries,  abbots,  and  bishops,  that  supports 
such  a  supposition.  The  "  council  of  seniors,"  with  the 
abbot,  who  was  a  presbyter,  made  and  sent  forth  these 
bishops.  The  abbot,  "  a  presbyter  and  no  bishop,"  ruled 
all  these  bishops  when  they  were  made.  It  is  clear,  then, 
that  these  bishops  were  all  ordained  and  sent  forth  in  their 
origin  by  presbyters.  The  stream  cannot  rise  above  its 
fountain ;  their  own  orders  were  presby terian ;  all  the 
orders  others  derived  from  them  must,  therefore,  be  pres- 
byterian  also.  All  these  British  bishops,  then,  were  presby- 
terian,  and  all  orders  derived  from  them  were  preshy terian 
orders.  There  is  one  fact  mentioned  by  Bede  which 
strengthens  this  conclusion.  At  the  consecration  of  a 
bishop,  named  Chadda,  Bishop  Wini  was  assisted  by  two 
British  bishops.  Bede  says,*  that,  "  besides  this  Wini, 
there  was  not  any  true  bishop  and  rightly  consecrated — ■ 
— canonice  ordinatus — in  all  Britanny."  This  was  about 
A.D.  666.  Theodore  was  made  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
about  668.  This  Theodore  was  very  learned  in  canonical 
matters.  In  his  visitations,  the  matter  of  Chadda's  con- 
secration came  under  his  notice,  and  he  "  reproved  Chadda 
for  that  he  was  not  rightly  consecrated — and  he  did  himself 
supplie  and  render  complete  his  consecration  after  the  right 
and  due  catholic  manner — ordinationem  ejus  denub  catholica 
ratione  consummavif — he  ordained  him  over  again.  Now 
why  was  this  reordination,  but  because  he  considered  there 
was  something  in  the  case  of  the  two  British  bishops  that, 
according  to  the  canons,  rendered  their  ordinations  irregu- 
lar ?  And  what  was  this,  but  their  deriving  their  ordination 
from  presbyters  ?  And,  canonically  speaking,  this  was  irre- 
gular. High  Churchmen  are  welcome  to  this  admission. 
But,  then,  the  fact  of  these  British  bishops  having,  in  their 
origin,  presbyterian  ordination,  seems  undeniable.  Bishop 
Lloyd  ineffectually  endeavoured  to  disprove  this. 

These  men  of  God  had  laboured  twenty  years,  and  with 
great  success,  before  ever  the  monk  Austin  set  foot  in 
Britain.    It  is  a  mysterious  providence  that  that  ambitious, 

*  Book  iii,  chap.  28. 
11 


242       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

persecuting,  and  corrupting  church,  (for  such  it  even  then 
was,)  should  have  been  allowed  to  oppress  and  scatter  a 
church  so  much  superior  in  gospel  truth  and  hohness. 
Austin  failed  in  argument  and  authority  to  overcome  the 
British  bishops  and  divines.  He  threatened  their  destruc- 
tion in  a  pretended  prophecy,  and,  it  is  supposed  on  rather 
strong  grounds,  that  he  procured  war  to  be  made  upon 
them,  in  which  it  is  reported  "  that  there  were  slain  of 
them  who  came  to  pray,  [presbyters,]  about  a  thousand  and 
two  hundred  7nen,  and  only  fifty  escaped  by  flight."*  Bishop 
Jewel,  Archdeacon  Mason,  and  others,  show  that  it  is  pro- 
bable Austin  was  at  the  bottom  of  this  horrible  slaughter 
of  these  holy  men  and  ministers  of  God's  people.  Dr. 
Hook,  like  many  others,  more  inclined  to  the  Popery  and 
pageantry  of  Rome  than  to  the  apostolic  simplicity  and 
piety  of  the  British  bishops,  misleads  his  readers  in  his 
representation  of  Austin's  success.  Archdeacon  Mason 
has  shown,  by  a  careful  and  laborious  deduction,  that  he 
"  was  not  the  apostle  of  this  island,  not  of  the  Britons,  not 
of  the  Scots,  not  of  the  Picts,  not  of  the  Angles,  not  of  the 
Saxons,  not  of  all  the  Jutes,  but  of  Kent  alone.  \ 

King  James,  I  think  it  was,  remarked  that  episcopacy 
Avas  the  religion  of  kings.  Rome  has  long  known  this ; 
and  that  church  therefore  has  been  noted  for  "  committing 
fornication  with  the  kings  of  the  earthP  This  was  exem- 
plified in  the  period  we  are  upon.  The  Romish  bishops 
flattered  the  kings  :  the  kings  flattered  the  Romish  bishops. 
They  united,  therefore,  to  drive  away  the  simple,  pious, 
and  uncorrupted  laborious  British  bishops.  This  they 
completely  effected ;  and  the  curse  of  Popery  rested  upon 
the  country  for  many  ages  because  of  this  sin.  All  the 
English  bishops  henceforward  became  Popish,  and  not  a 
British  bishop  remained.\ 

*  Bede,  book  ii,  chap.  2. 

t  Vid.  Masoni  Vind.  Eccl.  Anglican.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  4,  ed.  1638,  Lend. 

t  "  It  had  been  much  better  if  the  English  had  received  Christianity 
from  the  Britains,  if  it  had  not  been  below  conquerors  to  be  taught  by 
those  whom  they  had  subdued.  For  they  would  have  delivered  this 
religion  to  us,  without  making  us  slaves  to  the  pope,  whose  creature 
Austhi  icas;  and  the  British  were  aware  of  this,  and  therefore  opposed 
him,  and  adhered  to  their  old  customs  of  Easter,  and  baptizing  in  a 
manner  somewhat  different  from  that  of  Rome,  and  they  continued  their 
former  practice  in  the  year  731,  when  Bede  finished  his  history;  but 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        243 

We  shall  not  leave  this  without  proof.  For  the  strange 
confidence  with  which  the  most  unfounded  statements  are 
sometimes  made,  on  the  other  side,  makes  it  necessary  to 
be  almost  tedious  in  authorities.  I  hope  and  believe  such 
things  are  often  done  in  ignorance.  Many  of  these  per- 
sons have  so  haughty  an  air  in  their  statements,  as  to  merit 
a  severe  rebuke  for  their  insolent  attempts  at  superiority 
on  their  baseless  assumptions.  Our  proofs  shall  be  taken 
from  Bishop  Godwin's  Lives  of  the  English  Bishops.  I 
use  the  edition  of  1743,  revised  and  corrected  by  Dr. 
Richardson,  master  of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge, 
and  canon  of  Lincoln  Cathedral. 

We  begin  with  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury.  Eccle- 
siastical rule  and  practice  commonly  connected  the  arch- 
bishop with  the  ordinations  of  all  the  bishops  in  his  pro- 
vince. The  pope,  as  supreme  and  above  all  law,  fre- 
quently interfered  with  this  ;  but  this  interference  of  the 
pope  will  not  alter  the  case  as  to  the  purity  of  English 
ordinations.  To  make  the  matter  as  brief  and  clear  as 
I  can,  I  will  throw  it  into  the  form  of  a  table.  It  might 
be  greatly  enlarged ;  but  the  metropolitan  sees,  and  a  few 
others,  will  suffice. 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY. 

J,    j^     Names  of  tJte  Bishops  Where  and  by  whom            Years  of    Pages  in 

and  Archbishops.  ordained.                     Episcop.      Godwin. 

668  Theodore Rome,  Pope  Vitalian 22 41 

735  Northelm Rome,  Pope  Gregory  III 5 44 

763  Lambert Rome,  Pope  Paul  1 27 46 

891  Plegmund Rome,  Pope  Formosus  (a)  . .   26 48 

in  a  short  time  after,  the  Welsh  as  well  as  the  English  became  entirely 
Romanists." — Johnson's  Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  vol.  i,  p.  34,  4th 
edition,  1715. 

{a)  "  Every  body  knows  the  history  of  Pope  Formosus.  Stephen 
VI.,  his  successor,  at  the  head  of  his  council,  having  declared  the  ordi- 
nations  which  he  had  administered  void,  caused  all  those  to  be  reor- 
dained  whom  he  had  ordered.  Sergius  III.  renewed  all  that  Stephen 
had  done  against  Formosus,  and  caused  his  ordinations  to  be  declared 
null  over  again.'^ — Courayefs  Defence  of  the  Ordinations  in  the  Church 
of  England,  p.  259.  Courayer  was  a  learned  Roman  Catholic.  His 
work  is  highly  esteemed  by  the  divines  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Now  Formosus  ordained  Plegmund,  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  He 
was  never  reordained.  He  ordained  most  of  the  bishops  in  England 
for  twenty-six  years.     What  became  of  the  succession  here  1 


244       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

.   j^     Names  of  the  Bishops  Where  and  by  whom  Years  of  Fages  in 

and  Archbishops.  ordained.  Episcop.     Godwin. 

1020  Agelnoth Rome 17 55 

1138  Theobald London,    Cardinal    Albert,    the 

pope's  legate 22 69 

1 174  Richard Anagni,  Pope  Alexander  III.  (b)     9 78 

1207  Stephen  Langton    Viterbo,  Pope  Innocent  III.  (c)     22 86 

1245  Boniface  (ci) Lyons,  Pope  Innocent  IV.  (e)      26 92 


(&)  According  to  Onuphrius  Panvinius,  one  of  the  pope's  most  de- 
voted biographers,  the  twenty-fourth  schism  in  the  popedom  was  be- 
tween Alexander  III.  and  Victor  IV.  Alexander  held  his  chair  by 
sedition,  war,  and  bloodshed. — See  Platina  in  his  lAfe.  Where  was 
the  true  succession  1 

(c)  Pope  Innocent  III.  deposed  our  King  John,  and  put  the  kingdom 
under  an  interdict  for  six  years.  Upon  his  restoring  th«  kingdom  to 
John,  by  his  legate,  Pandulph,  he  placed,  as  a  June  upon  it,  a  yearly 
rent  of  eight  thousand  marks,  and  ordered  that  the  kingdom  should  be 
held  of  the  pope  as  a  fee  farm  !  He  made  us  a  present  of  an  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury. 

{d)  See  Bishop  Godwin's  account  of  this  covetous  wretch  ;  who 
says,  that  "  he  used  all  means,  good  or  bad,  to  scrape  money  together, 
under  the  pretence  of  paying  the  debts  of  his  predecessors ;  but  that 
he  consumed  the  whole  in  war."  He  threw  the  whole  diocess  into  a 
flame  by  his  violent  and  base  proceedings. 

{e)  The  reader  will  think,  when  he  has  read  the  following  note,  that 
Archbishop  Boniface  had  received  the  spirit  from  the  hand  of  his  holi- 
ness, Pope  Innocent  IV.,  his  ordainer, — not  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the 
spirit  of  mammon,  the  demon  of  unrighteousness.  I  take  the  account 
of  Matthew  Paris,  as  given  by  Archdeacon  Mason,  where  much  more 
to  the  same  purpose  is  to  be  found.  "  The  avarice  of  Rome  had  pro- 
ceeded to  such  a  length,  and  had  ascended  so  high,  that  Robert,  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln,  caused  a  computation  to  be  made  by  bis-  clergy  of 
the  revenues  which  foreign  priests  and  prelates  drew  out  of  England ; 
and  it  was  found,  by  true  computation,  that  the  present  pope,  viz.. 
Innocent  IV.,  had  impoverished  the  universal  church  more  than  all  his 
predecessors  ;  and  that  the  annual  revenues  oi  foreign  clergymen,  whom 
the  Romish  Church  enriched  out  of  England,  amounted  to  more  than 
seventy  thousand  marks.  The  king's  revenue  alone  did  not  amount  to 
a  third  part  of  that  sum. 

"  In  the  year  1253,  Robert,  bishop  of  Lincoln,  wrote  to  this  pope,, 
in  these  words  : — '  Your  wisdom  will  know  that  I  obey  the  mandates, 
of  the  apostolical  see  with  filial  affection  and  devoted  reverence  ;  and, 
with  zeal  for  your  paternal  authority,  I  oppose  and  withstand  all  who 
oppose  the  mandates  of  the  apostolical  see.  For  the  mandates  of  the 
apostolical  see  neither  are  nor  can  be  any  other  than  the  doctrines  of 
the  apostles,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  pope,  in  the  hierarchy 
of  the  church,  is  the  vicar  of  Christ.  The  holiness  of  the  apostolical 
see  cannot  be  opposed  to  him,  (that  is,  to  Christ.)  The  tenor,  there- 
fore, of  your  letters  is  not  agreeable  to  apostolical  holiness,  but  altogether 
discordant  thereto.     First,  because  of  many  such  letters,  spread  every- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       245 

J.    J.     Names  of  the  Bishops  Where  and  ly  whom  Years  of   Pages  in 

and  Archbishops.  ordained.  Episcop.     Godwin, 

1278  John  Peckham Pope  Nicholas  IIL  (/)  13   ...  97 

1294  Robert  Winchelsey   Rome,  Cardinal  Sabinus 19   ...  100 

1313  Walter  Ray nold  .-  Robert  Winchelsey...  13  ...  103 
1327  Simon  Mepham...   Avignon,    bv   order    of  Pope 

JohnXXil 5  ...  105 

1333  John  Stratford Avignon,  Cardinal  Vitalis 15   ...  106 

1349  Thos,  Bradwardine    Avignon*  Cardinal  Bertrand  . .  ...  Ill 

1349  Simon  Islip R.  Stratford,  bishop  of  London, 

who  was  consecrated  by  John 
Stratford,  archbp.  of  Canter- 
bury, <icA(>m  see) 16   ...  112 

1366  Simon  Langham  ..  Simon  Islip,  a.s  aJoce ...  115 

1414  Henry  Chichley...   Sienna,  Pope  Gregory  XII.  (^)  29   ...  125 

where, — e  flood  of  inconstancy,  audacity,  impudent  pretensions,  and 
irreverence  ;  of  lying,  deceiving^  4-c.,  has  broken  iyi  upon  all.  Besides, 
except  the  sin  of  Lucifer  himself,  the  son  of  perdition,  none  can  be  more 
detestable,  abominable,  and  hateful  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  than  by 

such   BASE    FRAUDS    TO    KILL    AND    DESTROY  THE    SOULS   of  OUr  pastOral 

ofBce  and  charge.'  Wlien  these  things  came  to  the  ears  of  the  pope, 
unable  to  restrain  his  wrath  and  indignation,  he,  with  a  terrible  counte- 
nance, and  a  haughty  mien,  exclaimed,  '  "Who  is  this  old,  crazed,  blind 
fool,  who  dares,  with  such  temerity,  judge  our  actions  1  By  Peter  and 
Paul,  were  it  not  for  our  inbred  generosity,  I  would  hurl  such  con- 
fusion upon  him,  that  his  folly  and  punishment  should  astonish  the 
world.  What!  is  not  the  king  of  England  our  vassal  1  Yea 
more,  even  our  bond  slave  1  And  cannot  we,  by  a  sovereign  nod, 
imprisan  him,  and  bind  him  in  his  ignominy  V  "  Pages  of  this  sort  of 
abominations,  practised  by  the  popes  in  England,  may  be  seen  in  Mason, 
lib.  iv,  cap.  14.  He  goes  through  the  reigns  of  thirteen  kings,  with  this 
evidence  of  the  robberies  committed  by  the  popes  upon  that  kingdom. 
I  leave  the  reader  to  his  own  judgment  upon  these  apostolical  successors. 

(/)  Platina  says,  that  Nicholas,  to  enrich  his  relations,  robbed 
others.  "  He  took  away  by  violence  the  castles  of  certain  noble  Ro- 
mans, and  gave  them  to  his  own  relatives."  This  robber  ordained, 
Peckham,  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Bishop  Godwin  says,  that  "  Peck- 
ham  had  hardly  arrived  in  England,  when  the  pope,  his  creator,  (for  so 
he  was  pleased  to  call  him,)  required  a  large  sum  of  money  from  him, 
viz.,  four  thousand  marks.  It  will  not  be  uninteresting  to  hear  his 
answer.  '  Behold  V  says  he,  '  thou  hast  created  me,  and  forasmuch 
as  it  is  natural  for  a  creatare  to  desire  to  be  perfected  by  his  creator, 
so,  in  my  distresses,  I  desire  to  be  refreshed  by  your  holiness.  Truly 
a  writ  of  execution,  horrible  to  be  seen,  and  terrible  to  be  heard,  has 
lately  reached  me,  declaring,  that  except  I  answer  to  it  within  a  month 
after  the  feast  of  St.  Michael,  by  paying  into  the  hands  of  the  merchants 
of  Lucca  the  sum  of  four  thousand  marks,  according  to  my  bargain  with 
the  court  of  Rome,  I  am  then  to  be  excommunicated,  and  am  to  be  cursed, 
in  my  own  and  other  principal  churches,  with  bell,  book,  and  candles." 
Admirable  successors — of  Simon  Magus  I ! 

{g)  The  consecration  of  Chichley  by  the  hands  of  Pope  Gregory  XII. 


246        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

ARCHBISHOPS  OF  YORK. 

The  custom  was  for  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  to 
consecrate  the  archbishops  of  York ;  but  the  popes,  in 
the  plenitude  of  their  power,  frequently  overruled  this 
regulation,* 

-    J.       Names  of  the  Bishops  Where  and  hy  whom  Years  of   Pages  in 

'^'  and  Archbishops.  ordained.  Episcop.     Godwin. 

1119  Thurstan Pope  Calixtus 26   ...  668 

1 147  Henry  Murdac Pope  Eugenius 6  ...  670 

11 54  Roger Theobald,  abp.  of  Can- 
terbury, (irAom  see).  27  ...  673 
1191  Geoffrey Plantagenet  Tours,  by  the  pope's  order  . .  22  ...  675 

1215  Walter  Grey by  Stephen  Langton, 

{whom  see) 40  ...  677 

1258  Godfrey  deKinton..  Rome 6   ...  682 

1279  William  Wickwane.  Rome 6  ...  682 

1285  John  Romanus Rome 10  ...  683 

1299  Thomas  Corbridge..  Rome,  Pope  Boniface  VIII. .  4  ...  684 

1305  Wm.  de  Greenfield .  Lyons,  Pope  Clement  V 10  ...  685 

1307  William de Melton.-  Avignon 23   ...  685 

1342  William  le  Zouch..  Avignon,  Pope  Clement  VI.  10  ...  686 

BISHOPS  OF  DURHAM. 

1133  Geoffrey  Rufus York,    Thurstan    of   York, 

{whom  see) 12  ...  734 

1153  Hugo  Pusar Rome 42  ...  735 

1197  Philip  of  Poictiers..   Rome,  Pope  Celestine  III 738 

1217  Richard  de  Marisco.  Walter  Grey,  archbishop  of 

York,  {whom  see) 9  ...  739 

is  even  put  into  Chichley's  epitaph.  Now  this  Gregory  was  one  of  the 
then  THREE  PRETENDERS  to  the  popcdom  ;  to  end  which  schism  the 
council  of  Constance  was  assembled.  The  history  of  these  confusions 
has  filled  volumes.  However,  Gregory  XII.  was  deposed,  and  John 
XXIII.  or  XXIV.  kept  the  chair.  Yet  Chichley  received  his  episcopal 
succession  from  this  Gregory,  declared  by  a  whole  council  to  be  no  pope 
of  Rome,  no  bishop  at  all  ;  and  he,  Chichley,  continued  to  commu- 
nicate these  false  orders  to  the  English  bishops  and  archbishops,  even 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  for  twenty-nine  years  !  What  an  unbroken  line 
of  valid  ordinations  !  ! 

These  notes  may  suffice.  They  might  be  multiplied  and  enlarged 
greatly,  but  this  is  needless.  The  fountains  are  corrupt ;  the  streams 
cannot  be  pure.  Either  the  popes  or  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
consecrated  the  archbishops  of  York.  These  two  archbishops  conta- 
minated all  the  bishops  of  their  distinct  provinces.  Never  was  a  sink 
of  iniquity  deeper  than  this  !  ! 

*  Vide  Howell's  Pontificate,  p.  288,  &,c.,  and  Bishop  Godwin, 
pp.  668,  &c. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       247 

.    ^       Names  of  the  Bishops  Where  and  by  whom  Years  of   Pages  in 

and  Archbishops.  ordained.  Episcop.     Godwin. 

1249  Walter  de  Kirkham.   Same  as  the  afcove 10  ...  743 

1283  Anthony  Beak Wickwane,  archbp.  of  York, 

{whom  see) 23  ...  743 

1311  Richard  Kellow Greenfield,  archbp.  of  York, 

{whom  see) 5  —  745 

1318  Lewis  Beaumont...   Rome 14  ...  745 

1345  Thomas  Hatfield...   Rome 36  ...  749 

BISHOPS  OF  WINCHESTER. 

909  Frithstan Plegmund,  abp.  of  Can- 
terbury, {xohom  see) . .  23 

1070  Walkelin Pope's  legate 27  ...  213 

1174  Richard  Toclivius  ..            Richard,  abp.  of  Canter- 
bury, (toAow  sec) 15  ...  216 

1205  PetrusdeRupibus..   Rome 34  ...  217 

1260  Ethelmar Rome,  Pope  Alexander  IV. .  1  . . .  220 

1262  John  of  Oxford Rome 3  ...  221 

1282  John  dePontissara..   Rome : 24  ...  222 

1323  John  de  Stratford...   Avignon 10  ...  224 

Winchester  and  Durham  are  taken  as  specimens  out 
of  the  provincial  sees  :  it  is  needless  to  go  further.  Proof 
abundant  is  here  given  that  the  episcopal  ordinations  in  the 
Church  of  England  flowed  steadily  through  all  the  filth 
of  Popery. 

We  have  shown  the  sin  of  simony  in  the  popedom  in 
the  last  section.  The  old  adage  is,  "  The  receiver  is  as 
had  as  the  thief^  The  English  bishops  regularly  traded 
with  Rome  in  simoniacal  traffic ;  evidence  enough  of  this 
is  found  in  Bishop  Godwin's  Lives  of  the  English  Prelates. 
The  court  of  Rome  sold  every  thing.  "  Sometimes,"  says 
Godwin,  "  those  who  had  purchased,  were,  by  a  fraudulent 
clause  in  a  subsequent  bull,  thrown  out  of  their  purchase." 
It  was  then  sold  to  a  second  huckster,  and  the  pope  re- 
ceived double.  P.  106.  John  of  Oxford,  bishop  of  Win- 
chester, paid  six  thousand  marks  to  the  pope  for  his  con- 
secration, and  the  same  sum  to  Jordan,  the  pope's  chan- 
cellor. P.  222.  Greenfield,  archbishop  of  York,  was  two 
years  before  he  could  obtain  his  confirmation  and  conse- 
cration from  the  pope,  and  then  he  pajd  nine  thousand  five 
hundred  marks  for  the  favour.  P.  685.  When  Moreton 
became  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Bishop  Godwin  says, 
"  he  spunged  from  the  bishops  of  the  provinces  a  large 


248        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

amount  of  money,  compelling  them,  by  the  authority  of  the 
pope,  to  bear  the  cost  of  his  translation  to  that  see — to  the 
amount  of  fifteen  thousand  pounds.   P.  131. 

"  These,  and  other  enormities,  viz.,  all  manner  of  avarice, 
usury,  simony,  and  rapine  ;  all  kinds  of  luxury,  libidinous- 
ness,  gluttony,  and  pride,  reign  in  the  court  of  Rome, — 

Ejus  avariticc  totus  non  sufficit  orUs 
Ejus  luxuries  meretrix  non  sufficit  omnis.^^* 

The  incapacity  of  these  lord  bishops  was  often  ludi- 
crous. When  Beaumont  was  made  bishop  of  Durham, 
Godwin  says,  "  he  was  lame  of  both  feet,  and  so  illiterate 
that  he  could  not  read  the  documents  of  his  consecration. 
The  word  metropoliticcB  occurring,  he  hesitated,  and  being 
unable  to  pronounce  it,  he  exclaimed,  'Let  us  skip  it  and  go 
on.'' "  So  also  when  he  came  to  the  term  (Bnigmate,  "  sticking 
in  the  mud  again^^  says  Godwin,  "  he  biurst  out  into  these 
words, — '  By  Saint  Lewis  !  he  was  very  uncourteous  who 
wrote  that  word  there^ "  His  next  successor  but  one  in 
the  same  see  was  Thomas  Hatfield.  When  the  pope 
was  reasoned  with,  that  Hatfield  was  a  young,  trifling 
fellow,  without  either  knowledge,  gravity,  or  sincerity,  he 
answered, — "  If  the  king  of  England  [who  had  requested 
the  pope  to  consecrate  this  Hatfield]  had  asked  me  now 
to  make  an  ass  a  bishop,  I  would  not  have  refused  himP 
P.  750. 

That  all  bishops  were  pledged  to  Popery  before  the  Refor- 
mation will  be  evident  from  the  account  of  the  pall,  and 
the  bishop's  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  pope.  Fox,  the  vener- 
able martyrologist,  shall  state  this  matter :  "  This  pope, 
[Alexander  HI.,]  among  many  other  his  acts,  had  certain 
councils,  some  in  France,  some  at  Rome  in  Lateran,  by 
whom  it  was  decreed,  that  no  archbishop  should  receive 
the  pall,  unless  he  should  first  swear.  Concerning  the 
solemnity  of  which  pall,  for  the  order  and  manner  of  giving 
and  taking  the  same,  loith  obedience  to  the  pope,  as  it  is 
contained  in  their  own  words,  I  thought  it  good  to  set 
forth  unto  thee,  that  thou  mayest  well  consider  and  under- 
stand their  doings.    " 

"  The  form  and  manner,  how  and  by  what  words  the 

*  Archdeacon  Mason's  Vindic.  Eccles.  Anglican.,  p,  522. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        249 

pope  is  wont  to  give  the  pall  unto  the  archbishop,  in 
English  : — 

"  To  the  honour  of  Almighty  God,  and  of  blessed  Mary, 
the  virgm,  and  of  blessed  Peter  and  Paul,  and  of  our  lord 
POPE  N.  and  of  the  holy  Church  of  Rome,  and  also  of  the 
church  N.,  committed  to  your  charge,  we  give  to  you  the  pall, 
taken  from  the  body  of  St.  Peter,  as  a  fulness  of  the  office 
pontifical,  which  you  may  wear  within  your  own  church 
upon  certain  days,  which  be  expressed  in  the  privileges  of 
the  said  church,  granted  by  the  see  apostolic. 

"  In  like  manner  proceedeth  the  oath  of  every  bishop, 
smearing  obedience  to  the  pope,  in  like  words  as  followeth,  in 
English : — 

"  I,  N,,  bishop  of  N.,  from  this  hour  henceforth,  will  be 
faithful  and  obedient  to  blessed  St.  Peter,  and  to  the  holy 
apostolic  Church  of  Rome,  and  to  my  lord  N.  the  pope.  I 
shall  be  in  no  council,  nor  help  either  with  my  consent  or 
deed,  whereby  either  of  them,  or  any  member  of  them  may 
be  impaired,  or  whereby  they  may  be  taken  with  any  evil 
taking.  The  council  which  they  shall  commit  to  me  either 
by  themselves,  or  by  messengers,  or  by  their  letters,  wit- 
tingly or  willingly,  I  shall  utter  to  none  to  their  hindrance. 
To  the  retaining  and  maintaining  the  Papacy  of  Rome,  and 
the  regalities  of  St.  Peter,  I  shall  be  aider  (so  mine  order 
be  saved)  against  all  persons,  &c.  So  God  help  me  and 
these  holy  gospels  of  God"* 

The  learned  Mr.  Johnson,  who  was  proctor  for  the  clergy 
of  the  diocess  of  Canterbury,  says,  that  "  both  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  and  he  of  York,  from  the  time  of 
Austin  and  Paulinus,  down  to  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII., 
(saving  that  eight  of  this  province  [YorA;]  had  it  not,  viz., 
those  between  Paulinus  and  Egbert,)  received  a  pall  from 
Rome,  for  which  they  paid  an  unreasonable  sum.  This 
pall  was  a  supernumeral  robe  of  lambs''  icool,  curiously 
adorned,  and  worn  by  the  archbishop  when  he  celebrated  : 
it  is  still  the  arms  or  device  of  the  archbishopric  of  Canter- 
bury. It  was  pretended  to  be  an  ensign  of  archiepiscopal 
authority,  but  was  in  reality  a  badge  of  slavery  to  the  see 
of  Rome"i     And  will  the  metropolitan  of  all  England  con- 

*  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  vol.  i,  p.  259,  fol.  edition.    Lon.,  1684. 
t  Johnson's  Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  vol.  i,  p.  41,  fourth  edition, 
1715. 

11* 


250        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

tinue  to  bear,  in  the  most  distinguished  place  and  manner, — 

*'  in  REALITY    A    BADGE   of  SLAVERY   tO  the   SEE  of  RoME  ?" 

Let  the  Church  of  England  put  such  things  away.  They 
are  discreditable  and  injurious  to  the  cause  of  Protestant- 
ism in  geneal. 

Here,  then,  is  sufficient  eAddence  of  the  point  that  the 
episcopal  ordinations  in  the  Church  of  England,  before  the 
Reformation,  came  through  the  ^'■series  of  monsters,^'' — the 
popes  of  Rome.  Evidence  also  has  been  given  that  the 
bishops,  generally,  were  as  corrupt  as  the  popes.  ^^  All 
ecclesiastical  degrees,  even  from  the  pope  to  the  doorkeep- 
ers, were  oppressed  with  damnable  simony."  St.  Bernard 
says  that  ambitious,  covetous,  sacrilegious,  simoniacal, 
incestuous  persons,  fornicators,  and  such  like  monsters  of 
mankind,  flowed  from  all  parts  of  the  world  to  Rome,  that 
by  the  apostolical  authority  they  either  might  obtain  or 
keep  ecclesiastical  honours."  Such  were  the  ordainers 
and  the  ordained !  Blessed  channels !  through  whom 
alone  the  pov/er  and  authority  to  preach  a  holy  gospel  is  to 
be  communicated  for  the  salvation  of  the  world ! 


SECTION  XIII. 

NULLITY    OF     POPISH     ORDINATIONS    OF     ENGLISH    BISHOPS 
CONCLUDED. 

Having  in  the  preceding  sections  exhibited  a  brief  view 
of  the  ordainers  of  the  English  bishops  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  of  the  persons  who  were  ordained  by  them,  our 
way  is  now  clear  for  the  more  immediate  discussion  of 
these  Popish  ordinations.  Three  questions  require  our 
consideration  here :  first,  what  is  ordination  ?  secondly, 
what  are  the  Scriptural  regulations  on  the  subject,  as  to 
the  ordainers  and  the  persons  to  be  ordained  ?  and  thirdly, 
what,  according  to  these  rules,  is  the  validity  of  these 
Popish  ordinations  ? 

First,  what  is  ordination  ?  Ordination  is  that  act  of  the 
church  by  which  persons  are  solemnly  set  apart  to  the 
ministry  of  the  gospel.  It  is  usually  performed  by  laying 
on  the  hands  of  the  ministers  already  existing  in  that  church. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        251 

Apostolical  usage  countenances  this  form ;  but  no  particu- 
lar form  was  ever  made  necessary.  The  priests  under  the 
law  had  no  imposition  of  hands  in  their  ordination :  the 
apostles  had  no  imposition  of  hands  in  their  ordination  :  it 
is  never  commanded.  It  is  decent  and  proper,  but  not 
essential;  not  necessary  to  ordination.  Some  persons 
will  assert  the  contrary,  and  maintain  that  imposition  of 
hands  is  essential  to  ordination.  The  reader,  who  will 
receive  assertions  for  proof,  will  believe  them  :  sufficient 
Scriptural  proofs  they  have  not ;  and  human  authority  can 
enjoin  nothing  as  essential  in  divine  matters,  such  as  the 
ministry  of  the  gospel.  To  make  this  more  clear,  we  may 
remark,  that  all  the  great  writers  on  the  subject  generally 
grant  that  there  is  no  command  in  the  word  of  God  enjoin- 
ing either  any  particular  matter  or  form  of  ordination  :  that 
is,  in  plainer  language,  no  particular  action,  sign,  or  form 
of  words,  is  enjoined  as  necessary  to  ordination  :  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  consequently,  is  not  enjoined,  and  therefore 
is  not  necessary.  If  we  come  to  custom,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, that  the  Jewish  sanhedrim,  from  which  it  is  sup- 
posed that  the  Christian  church  took  many  of  its  ordination 
ceremonies,  that  this  sanhedrim  admitted,  for  a  long  period, 
ordinations  to  be  performed  without  imposition  of  hands. 
It  was  frequently  done  by  a  written  document,  to  absent 
persons,  simply  declaring  them  ordained ;  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  sovereign  would  appoint 
a  lieutenant  to  a  county.*  As  to  the  opinions  of  Christian 
writers  on  the  subject,  they  did  not,  for  above  a  thousand 
years  after  the  apostles'  time,  define  what  they  considered 
necessary  to  ordination.  When  they  began  to  attempt 
this,  some  fixed  upon  one  thing,  and  some  upon  another,  in 
endless  confusion.  Those  who  at  last  came  to  place  m- 
position  of  hands  among  the  essentials,  did  it  upon  no  other 
ground  than  this,  that  the  church  had  willed  it  to  be  so  by 
its  usage.  They  grant  that  the  church  might  have  used  it 
or  not  used  it,  without  violating  any  divine  authority.  The 
argument,  then,  is  based  on  false  premises,  as  it  assumes 
that  the  church  can  add  to  the  essentials  of  religion.  The 
conclusion,  of  course,  falls  to  the  ground.  And  the  po- 
sition remains  immovable,  that,  as  there  is  no  command  in 
the  word  of  God  enjoining  any  particular  action,  sign,  or 
*  See  Seldon,  de  Syn.,  b.  ii,  c.  7,  sec.  1. 


252        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

form  of  words,  as  necessary  to  ordination ;  therefore,  no 
particular  action,  sign,  or  form  of  words,  is  necessary  to 
ordination  ;  consequently,  imposition  of  hands  is  not  neces- 
sary to  ordination.  We  may  simply  remark,  in  conclu- 
sion, that  the  words  used  by  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the 
Church  of  England, — "  Receive  thou  the  Holy  Ghost, 
&c.,"  were  not  used  by  the  Christian  church  for  above  a 
thousand  years  after  Christ.* 

Secondly,  what  are  the  Scriptural  regulations  on  the 
subject  of  ordinations,  as  to  the  ordainers,  and  the  persons 
to  be  ordained.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  qualifi- 
cations are  generally  the  same  as  to  both  parties.  The 
reader  is  requested  carefully  to  bear  in  mind  that  part  of 
section  fourth^  extending  from  page  71  to  page  80.  From  this 
he  will  see  that  holiness  of  life,  the  call  of  God,  a.nd  sound- 
7iess  in  the  faith,  are  required  in  a  minister  by  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles.  The  special  command  given  by  St.  Paul 
to  Timothy,  as  to  the  ordainers,  is  as  follows :  "  The 
things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses, 
the  same  commit  thou  io  faithful  men,  v.ho  shall  be  able  to 
teach  others,"  2  Tim.  ii,  2.  This  cannot  reasonably  be 
interpreted  to  mean  less  than  these  two  things  :  first,  that 
the  man  is  a  true  believer,  a  true  Christian  ;  and  secondly, 
that  he  must  give  suitable  evidence  that  he  will  he  faithful 
to  the  truth  and  trust  of  the  gospel,  as  a  steward  of  its 
mysteries  :  less  than  this  would  not  answer  the  divine 
requisition.  Calvin  remarks,  with  liis  accustomed  good 
sense,  that  the  apostle  requires  them  to  be  '■^faithful  men, 
not  according  to  that  faith  which  is  common  to  Christians 
in  general,  but  that  by  way  of  emphasis  they  should  spe- 
daily  excel  in  faith."  This  is  corroborated  by  the  qualifi- 
cation for  deacons  ;  even  they  w^ere  to  be  "  men  of  honest 
report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  wisdom,^''  Acts  \\,  3. 

Then,  as  to  the  persons  to  be  ordained:  the  reader 
should  keep  in  mind  what  has  been  said  in  section  fourth,  as 
above  referred  to ;  especially  what  is  laid  down  by  divine 
authority  on  the  subject  in  1  Tim.  iii,  1-7,  and  Titus  i,  5—9  : 

*  See  on  the  points  above  stated,  Morinus  de  Ordinationibus  ;  Ca- 
bassutii  Not.  Eccles.,  p.  178  ;  Altare  Damascenum,  p.  174,  edit.  1708  ; 
StiUingfleet's  Irenicum,  pp.  270  and  392  ;  Masoni  de  Ministcrio  Angli- 
cano,  pp.  216,  &c.  ;  and  Courayer  on  English  Ordinations,  chap,  x,  pp. 
161  and  197,  edit.  Lond.,  1725. 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        253 

"  This  is  a  tnie  sapng.  If  a  man  desire  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work.  A  bishop  then  must  be 
blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  \-igilant,  sober,  of  good 
behaviour,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  not  given  to 
wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre  ;  but  patient, 
not  a  brawler,  not  covetous  ;  one  that  ruleth  well  his 
own  house,  hann?  his  children  in  subjection  with  all 
gravity- ;  (for  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house, 
how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God  ?)  not  a  no- 
vice, lest  being  lifted  up  with  pride  he  fall  into  the  con- 
demnation of  the  devil.  Moreover  he  must  have  a  good 
report  of  them  which  are  without ;  lest  he  fall  into  re- 
proach and  the  snare  of  the  devil.''  "  For  this  cause  left 
I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  ever\-  city,  as  I  had 
appointed  thee  :  if  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one 
wife,  having  faithful  children,  not  accused  of  riot,  or  unruly. 
For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God ; 
not  self-willed,  not  soon  angr\-,  not  given  to  wine,  no 
striker,  not  given  to  lilihy  lucre  ;  but  a  lover  of  hospitality ; 
a  lover  of  good  men,  sober,  just,  holy,  temperate  ;  holding 
fast  the  faithful  word  as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  ma^' 
be  able  by  sound  doctrine  both  to  exhort  and  to  con-vince 
the  gainsayers."  Here,  personal  piety  ;  an  unhlameablc  hfe; 
knowledge  of  the  gospel,  ability  to  teach,  &c.,  are  strictly 
required.  One  point  desenes  especial  notice  here,  as 
great  mistakes  arise  from  overlooking  it,  viz.,  the  call  of 
God,  as  PRECEDING  all  human  appointment  to  the  office  of 
the  ministry-.  This  call  is  stated  and  proved  at  page  73. 
Archbishop  Potter,  a  high  authorit}-  on  the  subject,  main- 
tains "  that  the  whole  power  of  erecting  the  Christian 
church,  and  of  governing  it  since  it  was  erected,  is  derived 
from  [God]  the  Father.  But  then  the  person  by  whom  this 
power  is  immediately  conferred  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  And 
the  authority  and  special  grace,  whereby  the  apostles,  and 
all  church  officers  execute  their  respective  functions,  are  in 
the  same  manner  ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  So  that  all  eccle- 
siastical authority,  and  the  graces  whereby  men  are  ena- 
bled to  exercise  this  authority  to  the  benefit  of  the  church, 
are  the  gifts  ofthe  Holy  Spirit"*     So  Bishop  Wilson : 

*  Archbishop  Potter  on  Church  Government,   pp.   254-256,  edit. 
Baffster.    Lond.,  1838. 


254       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

"  As  we  consult  God,  as  Jesus  Christ  himself  did,  when  we 
ordain  men  to  his  service,  so  should  we  consult  Jesus  Christ 
when  we  assign  them  a  place  in  his  family.  Would  Jesus 
Christ  have  given  this  man  the  charge  of  the  souls  of  this 
parish?  That  we  may  have  the  comfort  of  knowing  that  we 
enter  into  the  ministry  by  a  choice  which  proceeded  from 
God,  we  must  have  some  assurance  in  our  own  hearts,  that 
the  glory  of  God,  the  good  of  souls,  was  in  our  intention,  and 
that  we  were  called  regularly,  and  according  to  the  inten- 
tion of  the  church.  It  belongs  to  thee,  O  Holy  Spirit  of 
grace,  to  send  such  guides  into  thy  church  as  may  lead 
thy  people  in  the  right  way,  and  to  be  the  guide  of  those 
guides."*  And  Peter  Damian,  cardinal,  bishop  of  Ostia, 
who  assisted  the  popes  in  the  eleventh  century  to  settle  the 
question  of  disputed  ordinations,  grants  fully,  that  "aZ/that 
is  great  and  holy  in  ordination  is  by  the  receiving  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  so  that  their  ordination  is  to  be  ascribed  to 
God  and  not  to  man  ;  and  that  the  priests,  on  their  ordina- 
tion, do,  as  it  were,  become  clothed  loith  the  righteousness 
of  God.^'j  From  these  statements,  and  from  what  has  been 
above  referred  to,  it  clearly  follows,  that,  as  the  call  of  God 
must  jrrecede  the  human  appointment,  and  be  the  basis 
upon  which  it  rests,  any  human  appointment  which  super- 
sedes, contradicts,  or  sets  aside,  this  divine  call,  is  null  and 
void  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  God's  call  can  never  coii- 
tradict  his  own  requisitions.  He  who  requires  in  his  writ- 
ten word,  as  qualifications  for  this  office,  that  the  candi- 
dates for  it  should  be  ^^  just  and  holy,'"  would  never,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  call  a  wicked  and  unholy  man :  he  who 
requires,  by  his  written  word,  a  man  to  be  "  blameless,^'' 
would  never  call  a  man  by  the  Holy  Ghost  who  had  no- 
thing but  what  WRS  full  of  blame :  he  who  requires  by  his 
written  word  that  a  man  be  "  sober  and  temperate,^^  would 
never  call  a  man  by  the  Holy  Ghost  who  was  «  drunkard: 
he  who  by  his  written  word  requires  a  man  not  to  be  given 
to  ''filthy  lucre,''  would  never  by  the  Holy  Ghost  call  a 
simonist,  a  trader  in  holy  things  :  he  who  by  his  written 
word  requires  a  man  "  to  hold  fast  the  faithful  word," 
would  never  by  the  Holy  Ghost  call  a  heretic  to  this  minis- 
try.    No  wicked  men,  ih.exe.{oTG,  no  drunkards,  wo  simonists, 

*  Bishop  Wilson's  Meditations  in  the  Oxford  Tracts,  No.  65. 
t  Damiani  de  Eccles.  Inst.,  cap.  3,  edit.  1536,  12mo. 


ox  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        255 

no  heretics,  as  such,  ever  had  the  call  of  God.  But  the 
greatest  part  of  the  ordainers  and  the  ordained  before  the 
Reformation  were  wicked,  drunkards,  simonists,  heretics, 
&c. ;  see  section  xi  and  xii.  God  never  sent  them.  "  The 
blind  led  the  blind,  and  both  fell  into  the  ditch."  For 
any  human  authority,  knowingly  to  put  such  men  into  the 
ministry,  is  to  break  God's  ordinances,  to  introduce  wolves 
instead  of  shepherds  into  the  fold  of  Christ,  and  to  increase 
the  condemnation  of  the  men  so  obtruded  upon  the  church. 
He  who  ordains  a  wicked  man  to  the  ministry  is  a  traitor 
to  God  and  the  church.  Such  is  the  view  we  derive 
from  this  supreme  authority.  If  men  speak  according  to 
these  oracles,  let  us  hear  them ;  but,  if  otherwise,  they  are  of 
no  authority.  Let  God  be  true,  though  every  man  be  a  liar. 
Our  English  reformers  have  some  fine  remarks  on  this 
subject.  In  the  declaration  made  of  the  functions  and 
divine  institution  of  bishops  and  priests  by  the  convocation, 
as  noticed  above,  they  say,  "  This  off.ce,  &c.,  is  subject, 
determined,  and  restrained  unto  those  certain  limits  and 
ends  for  the  which  the  same  was  appointed  by  God's  or- 
dinance; which,  as  was  said  before,  is  only  to  adminis- 
ter and  distribute  unto  the  members  of  Christ's  mystical 
body,  spiritual  and  everlasting  things:  that  is  to  say,  the 
pure  and  heavenly  doctrine  of  Christ's  gospel,  and  the 
graces  conferred  in  his  sacraments.  And  therefore  this 
said  power  and  administration  is  called,  in  some  places  of 
Scripture,  donum  et  gracia,  a  gift  and  grace  ;  in  some 
places  it  is  called  claves  sive  potestas  clavium,  that  is  to 
say,  the  keys,  or  the  power  of  the  keys;  whereby  is  sig- 
nified a  certain  limited  office,  restrained  unto  the  execution 
of  a  special  function  or  ministration,  according  to  the  say- 
ing of  St.  Paul  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his  First  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  and  also  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians."  After  a  lengthened  comment  on  the  last 
reference,  they  conclude  thus  :  "  By  which  words  it  ap- 
peareth  evidently,  not  only  that  St.  Paul  accounted  and 
numbered  this  said  power  and  office  of  the  pastors  and 
doctors  among  the  proper  and  special  gifts  o{  lh.e  Holy  Ghost, 
but  also  it  appeareth  that  the  same  was  a  limited  power 
and  office,  ordained  especially  and  only  for  the  causes  and 
purposes  before  rehearsed."      These  are  golden  sentences. 


256        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

The  office,  power,  and  authority  of  bishops  and  presbyters 
"  is  subject,  determined,  and  restrained  unto  those  certain 
limits  and  ends  for  the  which  the  same  was  appointed  by 
God's  ordinance.''^     From  these  premises  it  follows, — 

First,  that  it  is  limited  to  spiritual  matters  ;  ministers 
of  the  gospel  have  no  authority  over  the  body  and  sub- 
stance of  the  people,  either  directly  or  indirectly : 

Secondly,  that  it  is  limited  to  the  edification  of  the 
church,  to  the  building  up  of  God's  people  in  their  most 
holy  faith  ;  as  soon,  then,  as  ever  any  one  begins  to  subvert 
the  faith  of  the  church,  his  office  loses  its  authority  : 

Thirdly,  that  all  bishops  and  presbyters  are  limited  in 
their  ordinations,  not  only  to  such  qualifications  of  the 
candidates  as  "  God's  ordinance''''  requires,  but  also  they 
are  limited  by  God's  ordinance  in  the  power  and  authority 
they  give  to  those  whom  they  ordain  ;  that  is,  they  cannot 
give  either  more  or  less  than  is  "  determined  hy  Gods  ordi- 
nance?'' 

From  overlooking  this  last  point,  a  silly  argument  has 
been  attempted  by  many  writers  on  episcopacy,  in  order 
to  prove  that  though  presbyters  in  the  apostles'  time  might 
have  the  power  of  ordination,  yet  if,  when  modern  bishops 
ordained  any  presbyters,  they  did  not  choose  to  give  these 
presbyters  authority  to  ordain,  that  then  these  presbyters 
have  no  divine  authority  to  ordain.  This  is  saying  not 
that  "  God's  ordinance,"  but  that  the  bishops'  dicta  deter- 
mines the  limits  of  the  gospel  ministry.  A  delighful  doc- 
trine to  high  Churchmen  !  but  a  doctrine  which  is  the  very 
essence  of  Popery  itself  That  any  particular  church  may 
make  prudential  arrangements  on  the  subject  of  ordination 
as  a  rule  for  its  own  ministers,  is  readily  granted ;  but 
this  is  a  mere  humxin  affair,  and  never  can  in  the  least 
affect  in  the  sight  of  God  the  authority  of  any  true  minis- 
ter of  Christ  in  the  church  of  God,  Presbyters  in  the 
apostles'  time  were  the  same  as  bishops  :  Timothy  was 
ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery. 
Presbyters,  then,  had  divine  authority  to  ordain  in  the 
apostles'  times — God  never  took  it  away — no  power  on 
earth  can  take  it  away.  Presbyters,  therefore,  always  had, 
and  always  will  have,  a  divine  right  to  ordain.  Such  are 
the  divine  limitations  of  the  ministry — to  spiritual  things 
only  ;  to  edification  and  not  to  subversion  of  the  faith  ;  to 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       257 

the  qualifications  of  the  persons,  and  to  the  restraining  and 
fixing  of  the  ministerial  power  and  authority.  Let  these 
rules  be  observed,  and  a  universal  reformation  must  be  the 
consequence  ;  but  if  the  traditions  of  men  are  preferred  to 
the  commandments  of  God,  men  so  sent  will  preach  in 
vain  :  God  never  sent  them.  He  will  not  forsake  his  faith- 
ful people  ;  but  such  men  shall  not  profit  them.  This  is 
substantially  the  meaning  of  the  twenty-sixth  article  in  the 
Church  of  England.  It  gives  too  much  authority  to  such 
men ;  but  its  principal  design  is  to  show  that  the  effect  of 
Christ's  ordinance  is  not  taken  away  by  their  wickedness — 
"  from  such  as  by  faith  and  rightly  do  receive  the  sacra- 
ments ;"  that  is,  that  the  true  Shepherd  will  not  forsake  his 
fiock  because  wolves  happen  to  be  over  them.  Very  true  : 
but  this  will  not  prove  that  a  v/olf  is  either  a  sheep  or  a 
shepherd.  Wo  to  the  men  who  on  such  a  principle  place 
wolves  over  the  flock  of  Christ ! 

The  desire  to  maintain  an  external  unity  led  to  an  early 
corruption  in  this  matter.  For  the  supposed  honour  of  the 
church,  and  to  prevent  divisions,  as  the  fathers  state,  or- 
dination was  very  generally  given  up  into  the  hands  of  the 
bishops.  Many  of  them  became  tyrannical,  proud,  wicked, 
and  worldly.  And  what  made  the  case  worse  still,  was 
this,  that  during  the  fourth  century  the  greatest  part  of 
them  became  Arians,  denying  the  true  Godhead  of  Christ, 
and  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Now 
what  was  to  be  done,  when  those  who  maintained  the 
orthodox  faith  began  again  to  prevail?  They  must  either 
deny  that  heretics^  as  the  Arians  were,  could  give  true  or- 
ders, and  consequently  altogether  reject  the  Arian  bishops, 
and  their  ordinations ;  or  they  must  receive  their  orders  as 
valid  and  Christian.  Well,  to  patch  up  the  matter,  and 
save  the  honour  of  the  bishops,  they  generally  received  the 
ordinations  of  the  Arians.  And  it  is  probable  that  nearly 
all  the  episcopal  ordinations  in  the  world  have  come  from 
Arians.  A  glorious  succession !  Then  followed  the 
attempt  to  find  reasons,  and  make  decrees,  to  justify  such 
TJNscRiPTURAL  and  ABSURD  proceedings.  For  what  can  be 
more  unscriptural  and  absurd  than  to  pretend  that  a  man, 
who  refuses  to  receive  Jesus  Christ,  by  refusing  to  "  ho- 
nour the  Son  even  as  he  honours  the  Father  V  John  v,  23 
— that  such  a  man,  I  say,  can  have  a  commission  from 


258        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Christ,  to  ORDAIN  others  to  deny  him  also  ?  To  pretend 
to  salve  this  by  saying,  that  if  he  uses  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  does  this  by  the  authority 
of  the  church,  his  acts  are  valid,  is  a  sophism.  The 
authority  of  the  church  is  limited  by  the  Scriptures — by 
the  authority  of  God :  the  church,  therefore,  can  give  no 
authority  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  ;  but  the  Scriptures 
"  reject  all  heretics  ;" — all  that  "  deny  the  Lord  that  bought 
them,"  2  Pet.  ii,  1  ; — therefore  the  church  can  give  such 
heretics  no  authority  :  see  section  fourth.  The  words,  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  either  used  according  to 
Scripture  truth,  or  they  are  not.  If  an  Arian  should  use 
them,  according  to  Scriptiu-e  (an  impossible  supposition) 
he  comes  to  God  with  a  lie  in  his  mouth  ;  that  is,  he  pro- 
nounces as  true  what  he  believes  to  be  false,  and  this 
he  does  with  the  intention  of  deceiving  both  God  and  man. 
To  suppose  Christ  would  set  his  seal  to  this  lie,  would  be 
blasphemy.  An  Arian,  therefore,  cannot  use  them  in  a 
true  sense.  Suppose,  then,  that  he  uses  them  in  n,  pervert- 
ed sense, — did  Christ  ever  give  him  a  commission  to  pervert 
his  truth,  and  to  appoint  others  to  pervert  it  ?  This  again 
is  blasphemous  and  absurd.  An  Arian,  therefore,  has  no 
commission  ;  he  can  give  none.  All  he  does  is  null  and 
void  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  A  righteous  division  is 
better  than  a  sinful  unity.  The  orthodox  should  have  act- 
ed on  this  principle.  However,  too  much  wickedness  in 
life  had  at  that  time  spread  over  those  parts  wliich  held  the 
orthodox  view  of  the  Trinity,  so  that  there  was  not  moral 
courage  enough  to  resist  and  counteract  these  abominations. 
Heresy  is  destructive  ;  and  faith,  without  works,  is  dead. 
Nothing  but  a  living,  fruitful  faith,  can  conquer  the  world. 

Simony  is  a  point  to  be  well  considered  here.  Though 
this  was  an  early  evil,  yet  as  it  never  could  be  embraced 
by  any  part  of  the  church  as  a  mark  of  a  sect  or  division 
in  the  church,  so  no  evil  schemes  to  defend  it  were  laboured 
out  by  perverted  ingenuity.  It  has  always  been  condemn- 
ed by  decisions  of  councils,  as  the  foulest  of  sins ;  as  the 
following  extracts  will  show  : — 

"  If  any  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  obtain  his  dignity  by 
MONEY,  let  him,  and  him  who  ordained  him,  he  deposed, 
and  wholly  cut  off  from  communion,  as  Simon  Magus 
was  by  Peter." — Apostolical  Canons,  No.  22.    I  am  aware 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        259 

of  the  dispute  about  the  authority  of  these  canons.  I  be- 
lieve them  to  be  of  no  apostolical  authority.  However,  it 
is  generally  acknowledged  that  they  give  us  the  views  and 
practice  of  the  church,  in  fact,  at  a  very  early  age.  They 
were,  in  the  fourth  and  following  centuries,  referred  to  as 
ecclesiastical  authority.  They  are  in  great  estimation 
with  high  Churchmen.  Mr.  Johnson,  the  learned  transla- 
tor of  the  canons,  a  strong  succession  advocate,  remarks 
in  his  notes  on  this  canon : — "  Indeed,  in  the  case  oi  simony, 
it  may  be  said,  that  he  who  obtained  orders  by  this  means, 
his  orders  were  null  ah  initio^'' — -from  the  beginning.  He 
never  had  any  really. 

"  If  any  bishop  ordain  for  money ^  and  make  a  market  of 
the  unvendible  grace,  and  perform  the  ordination  of  a  bish- 
op, village-bishop,  priest,  deacon,  orof  any  one  listed  in  the 
clergy,  for  ^am,  &c.,let  him  that  is  ordained  be  never  the 
better  for  his  ordination." — Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D. 
451,  can.  2.     There  were  present  six  hundred  bishops. 

"  That  they  who  are  ordained  for  money,  be  deposed^ 
and  the  bishop  who  ordained  them.'^ — Council  o{  Constanti- 
nople, or  Trullus,  A.  D.  683,  canon  22. 

"  Whosoever  either  sell  or  buy  holy  orders  cannot  be 
priests;  hence  it  is  written,  '  Cursed  be  he  that  gives  and 
he  that  receives.'  How,  therefore,  if  they  be  accursed, 
and  are  not  holy,  can  they  consecrate  others  ?  How  can 
he  bless,  who  is  accursed  himself?  There  is  no  power  in 
ordination,  where  buying  and  selling  prevail." — Canon 
Law,  by  Gratian,  in  the  twelfth  century. 

"  If  any  one  should  be  enthroned  in  Peter's  chair  by 
MONEY,  by  human  favour,  by  popular  or  military  tumult, 
without  the  united  and  canonical  election  of  the  cardinals, 
such  a  one  is  not  apostolical,  but  is  an  apostate  ;  and 
the  cardinals,  clergy,  and  people  of  God,  may  anathema- 
tize him  as  a  thief  and  a  robber,  and  may,  by  all  human 
means,  drive  him  from  the  apostolical  seatP — Second 
Council  of  Lateran,  Vid.  Platin.  in  Vita.  Nicolai.  tertii. 

"  Whatever  holy  orders  are  obtained  by  money,  either 
given  or  promised  to  be  given,  we  declare  that  they  were 
NULL  from  the  beginning,  and  never  had  any  validity.'''' 
— Council  of  Placentina,  A.  D.  1095,  can.  2. 

In  the  fortieth  canon  of  the  Church  of  England,  simony, 
the  buying  and  selliiig  of  orders,  &;c.,  is  declared  to  be 


260       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

*'  a  detestable  sin,  and  execrable  before  God."  And  every 
bishop,  priest,  &c.,  before  he  is  admitted  to  any  spiritual 
office,  is  obliged  to  take  the  following  oath :  — "  I,  N.  N., 
do  swear  that  I  have  made  no  simoniacal  payment,  con- 
tract, or  promise,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  myself  or  by 
any  other,  to  my  knowledge  or  with  my  consent,  to  any 
person  or  persons  whatsoever,  for  or  concerning  the  pro- 
curing and  obtaining  of  this  ecclesiastical  office,  &c.  So 
help  me,  God,  through  Jesus  Christ," 

Here,  then,  we  have  seen  what  qualifies  a  person  for 
ordination;  and  what  disqualifies  him.  Heaven  has  laid 
down  the  law.  The  authority  of  the  church  is  limited 
by  the  authority  of  God.  Every  person  truly  ordained, 
must  be  ordained  according  to  the  word  of  God ;  and  must 
be  ordained  specially  and  only  for  the  causes  and  purposes 
therein  contained.  Every  ordination  which  is  plainly  and 
knowingly  contrary  to  this  rule,  is  null  and  void  from  be- 
ginning to  end.  But  the  ordination  of  every  man  who  is 
plainly  not  a  "  faithful  man  ;"  that  is,  a  true  Christian, 
the  ordination  of  every  wicked  man,  of  every  heretic, 
and  of  every  simonist,  is  flatly  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God ;  therefore  the  ordination  of  every  M'icked  man,  of 
every  heretic,  of  every  simonist,  is  null  and  void  from  the 
beginning,  it  is  no  ordination  at  all. 

Let  us  apply  this  divine  rule  to  the  Popish  ordinations 
of  English  bishops,  before  and  at  the  Reformation,  The 
Church  of  Rome,  by  the  united  judgment  of  the  reformers, 
was  the  "  great  whore"  mentioned  in  the  Revelation. 
Can  this  "  great  whore"  have  legitimate  children  ?  Com- 
mon sense,  as  well  as  the  Scriptures,  would  declare — No  ! 
The  Church  of  Rome  is  an  idolatrous  church ;  can  she,  as 
such,  have  a  heavenly  commissioned  priesthood  ? — Impossi- 
ble !  The  popes,  bishops  of  Rome,  who  ordained  the  Eng- 
lish bishops,  were  monsters  in  crime,  heretics  and  simon- 
ists  of  the  darkest  dye.  They  could  have  no  commission 
from  a  holy  God :  they  were  "  sons  of  Belial,"  "  antichrist ;" 
they,  therefore,  could  give  no  commission. 

The  English  bishops,  generally,  before  the  Reformation, 
were  true  sons  of  the  "  great  whore."  They  bought  and 
sold,  and  trafiicked  in  spiritual  things;  they  were  wicked 
men,  idolaters  and  simonists.  Any  ordination  of  such  men 
would  be  null  from  the  beginning ;  would  be  nothing :— 


ON  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  261 

more,  if  possible,  when  they  were  ordained  by  those  mon- 
sters of  iniquity,  the  popes  of  Rome.  The  conclusion, 
then,  is  irresistible — Popish  ordinations  of  the  English 
BISHOPS  BEFORE  and  AT  the  Reformation  were  null  and 
void  to  all  intents  and  purposes  !  !* 

*  Two  objections  are  sometimes  urged  against  this  conclusion ;  first, 
— that  though  one  bishop  who  ordains  might  be  vicious,  a  simonist,  a 
heretic,  &c.,  yet  the  others  concerned  in  the  ordination  might  not  be  so  : 
and,  secondly,  it  is  urged  that  Judas  continued  to  possess  full  apostoli- 
cal authority  notwithstanding  his  being  a  thief,  a  devil,  and  a  traitor ; 
and  that,  therefore,  a  bishop  retains  full  episcopal  authority,  however 
wicked  he  may  be.     Let  us  examine  these  objections. 

Objection  1st. — That  though  one  bishop  who  ordains  might  be  vicious, 
a  simonist,  a  heretic,  &c.,  yet  the  others  concerned  in  the  ordination 
might  not  be  so.  This,  I  believe,  is  as  the  matter  is  usually  stated.  But 
the  true  state  of  the  question  is  different.  We  will  state  it  on  their  own 
principles;  viz.,  on  ecclesiastical  authority — Scriptural  authority  it  has 
none.  In  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  there  is  always  one  bishop  who  alone 
consecrates  ;  this  is  the  universal  language  of  the  rituals  on  the  subject : 
the  other  bishops  who  take  part  in  the  ceremony  are  rather  there  as  wit- 
nesses than  as  consecrators.  The  ancient  rituals  never  speak  of  more  than 
one  consecrator.  In  all  the  ancient  Greek  forms  of  ordination,  as  exhi- 
bited by  Morinus,  one  bishop  only  lays  his  kaJid  on  the  head  of  the  person 
to  be  ordained,  the  other  bishops  touching  the  Gospels  placed  upon  the 
head  of  the  person  to  be  ordained.  In  the  Roman  Church  the  other 
bishops  touched  his  head,  but  did  not  lay  their  hands  on  his  head.  One 
bishop  only  pronounced  the  consecration  prayer.  This  was,  in  ninety- 
nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred,  either  the  pope  or  the  archbishop  :  see 
Morinus,  part  ii,  pages  234  and  250.  The  consecration  of  bishops, 
therefore,  always  depended  upon  the  capability  of  the  one  bishop  who 
consecrated  ;  and  whenever  he  was  found  to  be  really  incompetent,  the 
general  rule  was  to  quash  all  his  ordinations.  The  monsters  of  iniquity, 
the  popes,  as  exhibited  in  the  preceding  pages,  were  the  sole  consecra- 
tors of  the  English  bishops,  as  stated  in  section  xii.  By  Scriptural 
rule  they  were  utterly  incompetent :  their  ordinations  were  consequently 
NULL.  The  rule  just  stated  makes  it  difficult  to  prove  the  validity  of 
Archbishop  Parker's  consecration  ;  upon  which  all  the  present  ordina- 
tions and  consecrations  of  the  English  Church  since  the  Reformation 
depend.  Barlow  was  his  only  consecrator ;  but  there  is  not  full  proof 
that  Barlow  himself  was  consecrated.  The  acts  of  the  consecration  of 
bishops  are  generally  registered  in  the  archives  of  the  archbishop,  but 
no  registration  of  Barlow's  consecration  can  be  found. 

Objection  2d. — It  is  urged  that  Judas  continued  to  possess  full  apos- 
tolical authority,  notwithstanding  his  being  a  thief,  a  devil,  and  a 
traitor  ;  and  that  therefore  a  bishop  retains  full  episcopal  authority, 
however  wicked  he  may  be.     We  answer, — 

First,  there  is  no  proof  that  Judas  was  a  wicked  man  w]\er\  first  put 
into  his  office. 

Secondly,  it  is  acknowledged  by  Churchmen  of  considerable  note, 


262        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

This  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  Protestant 
churches  at  the  Reformation  ;  and  even  before  that  time 
the  same  opinion  was  maintained  by  the  Waldenses.  In 
the  Treatise  of  Antichrist,  by  the  old  Waldenses,  written 
A.  D.  1200,  having  described  antichrist,  they  go  on — 
"  that  iniquity  that  is  after  this  manner,  with  all  the  minis- 
ters thereof,  great  and  small,   with  all  those  that  follow 

(v.  Archbishop  Potter  on  Church  Government,  pp.  35,  38,  51  and  52,  ed. 

Bagster,  1838,)  that  the  office  of  the  apostles,  before  our  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion, was  a  very  limited  one.  They  performed  no  ordinations,  exercised 
no  superintendence  over  any  societies,  had  no  authority  whatever  over  a 
single  human  being.  When  their  commission  was  more  fully  given, 
they  were  to  wait  in  Jerusalem  until  they  received  power  from  on  high. 
This  was  given  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

Thirdly,  limited  as  this  commission  was  in  Judas's  time,  there  is  no 
proof  that  he  performed  a  single  act,  as  an  apostle,  or  had  any  counte- 
nance from  our  Lord  to  do  so,  after  he  had  become  a  thief,  a  devil,  and  a 
traitor.  It  was  only  six  days  before  that  passover  at  which  our  Lord 
suffered,  that  Judas  is  first  charged  with  any  of  these  crimes.  It  was 
certainly  after  even  this  time  that  the  devil  is  said  to  have  entered  into 
Judas  :  his  treason  followed  this.  There  is  no  proof,  therefore,  that  he 
was  continued  in  the  authority  of  an  apostle  for  a  single  day  after  any 
of  these  crimes. 

Fourthly,  it  is  said  expressly  that  "  Judas  by  transgression  fell 
from  his  apostleship,^''  Acts  i,  25.  "  And  none  of  them  is  lost  but  the 
son  of  perdition,"  John  xvii,  12.  Judas  is  here  spoken  of  as  already 
*'  /os<,"  and  as  being  the  "  son  of  perdition.''^  He  was  lost  from  Jesus, 
and  consequently  lost  from  his  apostleship,  before  he  hanged  himself. 

The  conclusion  is,  that  there  is  no  proof  that  Judas  was  continued  a 
single  day  in  his  apostleship,  or  that  he  was  allowed  to  perform  a  single 
act,  as  an  apostle,  after  his  transgression  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
positively  asserted  in  the  word  of  God,  that  "by  transgression  he  fell 
from  it."  No  bishop,  then,  has  an  iota  of  authority  from  this  case  after 
he  becomes  a  wicked  man  ;  but  it  distinctly  and  positively  proves  that, 
as  a  wicked  man,  "  by  transgression  he  falls  from  his  office.'^  So  fall 
for  ever  all  such  schemes,  in  lohich  bigoted^  infatuated  men,  would  hide 
their  intolerance  and  abominations  ! 

Some  readers  may  wonder  why  I  have  taken  the  pains  to  expose  this 
last  monstrous  effort  to  make  Judas,  as  the  Rev.  Charles  Radcliffe 
humourously  said,  "  a  hook  on  which  to  hang  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion." I  can  tell  them.  In  my  simplicity,  I  supposed  such  a  thing  too 
monstrous  to  be  attempted  :  but  I  find  I  have  been  mistaken.  Even 
evangelical  clergymen,  I  have  been  told  on  good  authority,  have  had 
the  hardihood  and  infatuation  to  use  it  in  the  pulpit.  But  what  crowns 
all,  is,  that  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  A.  P.  Perceval,  B.  C.  L.,  chaplain  in 
ordinary  to  the  queen,  in  an  Answer  which  he  has  written  to  this  Essay, 
by  the  request  of  Dr.  Hook,  &c.,  and  dedicated,  by  permission,  to  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  has  placed  this  case  of  Judas  among  his  argu- 
ments !  !  See  p.  85  of  his  "Apology  for  the  Apostolical  Succession." 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.      263 

them  with  a  wicked  heart,  and  hoodwinked  eyes ;  this 
congregation,  thus  taken  all  together,  is  called  antichrist, 
or  Babylon,  or  the  fourth  beast,  or  the  whore,  or  the  man 
of  sin,  or  the  son  of  perdition.  His  ministers  are  called 
false  prophets,  lying  teachers,  the  ministers  of  darkness, 
&c.  Antichrist  covers  his  iniquity  by  the  length  or  suc- 
cession of  time, — by  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  apostles, 
— by  the  writings  of  the  ancients,  and  by  councils.  These 
and  many  other  things  are,  as  it  were,  a  cloak  and  a  gar- 
ment, wherewith  antichrist  doth  cover  his  lying  wickedness, 
that  he  may  not  be  rejected  as  a  pagan,  (or  infidel,)  and 
under  which  he  can  go  on  to  act  his  villanies  like  a  whore. 
Now  it  is  evident,  as  well  in  the  Old  as  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  a  Christian  stands  bound,  by  express  command 
given,  to  separate  himself  from  antichrist.''^  Then  a 
great  many  passages  of  Scripture  are  quoted  to  prove  this 
duty  of  separating  from  antichrist.  On  this  ground  it  was 
also  that  they  rehaptized  those  who  had  been  baptized  by 
the  Popish  bishops  and  priests,  accounting  them  sacrile- 
gious and  antichristian  ministers,  and  incapable  of  admin- 
istering any  sacraments.  See  Schlosser's  note  to  his  Latin 
version  of  Wall  on  Infant  Baptism.* 

Calvin  was  consulted  to  know  what  should  be  done 
when  any  bishop,  curate,  &lc.,  from  among  the  Papists, 
should  desire  to  join  himself  to  the  reformed  church  ?  He 
remarks,  "  first,  that  if  he  should  be  found  not  to  have  suf- 
ficient ability  and  qualification  for  the  office  of  a  minister, 
he  should  show  the  sincerity  of  his  conversion  by  retiring 
into  the  station  of  a  private  member  of  the  church.  But 
if  he  should  be  found  able  to  continue  in  the  ministry,  he 
was  to  give  in  a  confession  of  his  faith,  and  of  his  sincere 
and  sacred  adherence  to  the  reformed  religion.  Then  he 
was  to  acknowledge  that  his  vocation  or  call  to  the  min- 
istry had  been  a  mere  abuse  :  he  was  to  request  a  new 
approbation  ;  he  was  expressly  and  by  name  to  profess  that 
his  former  institution  by  the  authority  of  the  pope  had 
been  of  no  validity ;  and  at  the  same  time  he  was  to 
renounce  it  as  being  conferred  by  means  every  way  un- 
lawful and  opposed  to  the  order  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  established  in  the  church.  After  this,  he  was  to 
join  himself  to  the  company  of  the  other  reformed  ministers, 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  166.  4to.  Hamburg!,  1753. 


264       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  be  subject  to  the  discipline  and  government  established 
in  that  place  where  they  are.  It  is  certain  and  clear  that 
none  can  be  accounted  Christian  ministers,  except  they 
first  RENOUNCE  the  PRIESTHOOD  of  PoPERY,  to  which  they 
had  been  promoted  to  make  and  offer  Christ  as  a  sacrifice 
in  the  mass  ;  which  is  a  kind  of  blasphemy  to  be  detested 
by  all  possible  means.  These  things  being  done,  it  will 
be  the  duty  of  such  bishops  to  give  diligence  that  all  the 
churches  that  pertain  to  their  diocess  be  purged  from 
errors,  idolatry,  &c."* 

Here  this  great  reformer,  whose  views  were  generally 
received  almost  like  laws  in  a  large  portion  of  the  reformed 
church,  throws  Popish  ordinations  to  the  winds.  How 
abundantly  this  letter  proves  the  misrepresentations  of  such 
men  as  Dr.  Hook,  who  would  fain  persuade  us  that  where 
episcopacy  was  not  retained,  "  the  reformers  pleaded  not 
principle,  but  necessity."  Even  Bishop  Taylor  grants 
the  contrary.  "  M.  Du  Plessis,"  says  he,  "  a  man  of  honour 
and  great  learning,  does  attest,  that  at  the  first  Reformation 
there  were  mani/  archbishops  and  cardinals  in  Germany, 
England,  France,  and  Italy,  that  joined  in  the  Reformation, 
whom  they,"  the  reformed  churches,  "  might,  but  did  not, 
employ  in  their  ordinations.  And  w^hat  necessity  can  be 
pretended  in  this  case,  I  would  fain  learn,  that  I  might 
make  their  defence.  But,  which  is  of  more  and  deeper 
consideration,  for  this  might  have  been  done  by  inconsi- 
deration  and  irresolution,  as  often  happens  in  the  beginning 
of  great  changes  ;  but  it  is  their  constant  and  resolved  prac- 
tice, at  least  in  France,  that  if  any  returns  to  them,  they 
will  REORDAiN  him  by  their  presbytery,  though  he  had 
before  episcopal  ordination,  as  both  their  friends  and 
their  enemies  bear  witness."!  Here  then  is  evidence 
from  that  illustrious  champion  of  Protestantism,  Du  Ples- 
sis, and  from  the  French  church  in  general,  that  it  was 
the  constant  and  resolved  practice  to  reject  Popish  ordina- 
tions as  NULL  and  void. 

The  English  reformers  viewed  the  matter  in  the  same 
light.  They  continued  to  ordain  as  Christian  ministers,  but 
not  on  the  ground  of  their  Papal  ordinations  ;  else  why 

*  Calvini  Epistol.,  p.  339,  fol.  edit.    Genev.,  1575. 
t  He  refers  to  Danaeus,  Isagog.,  part  ii,  lib.  2,  c.  22,  Perron  Repli., 
fol.  92,  impress.  1605. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        265 

SO  solemn  a  discussion  by  the  bishops  and  divines  in  that 
day  on  such  questions  as  this  ? — 

"  Question  13.  Whether  (if  it  fortuned  a  Christian  prince 
learned,  to  conquer  certain  dominions  of  infidels,  having 
none  but  temporal  learned  men  with  him,)  if  it  be  defended 
by  God's  law,  that  he  and  they  should  preach  and  teach 
the  word  of  God  there,  or  no  ?  And  also  make  and  con- 
stitute priests,  or  no  ? 

^'■Agreement.  In  the  thirteenth  ;  concerning  the  first  part, 
whether  laymen  may  preach  and  teach  God's  word  1  They 
DO  ALL  AGREE,  in  such  a  case,  '  that  not  only  they  may,  but 
they  ought  to  teach.'  But  in  the  second  part,  touching  the 
constituting  of  priests  of  [by]  laymen,  my  lord  of  York, 
and  Doctor  Edgworth,  doth  not  agree  with  the  other  :  they 
say  that  laymen  in  no  wise  can  make  priests,  or  have  such 
authority ;  the  bishops  of  Duresme,  St.  David's,  Westmin- 
ster, Drs.  Tresham,  Cox,  Leighton,  Crawford,  Symmons, 
Redmayn,  and  Robertson,  say  that  laymen,  in  such  case, 
have  authority  to  minister  the  sacraments,  and  to  make 
PRIESTS.  My  lords  of  London,  Carlisle,  and  Hereford, 
and  Dr.  Coxen,  think  that  God,  in  such  a  case,  would  give 
the  prince  authority,  call  him  inwardly,  and  illuminate  him 
or  some  of  his,  as  he  did  St.  Paul."* 

So  the  great  Protestant  champions  against  Popery, 
Whitaker  and  Fulke,  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth: 
speaking  to  the  Papists,  "  I  would  not  have  you  think," 
says  Whitaker,  "  that  we  make  such  reckoning  of  your 
orders,  as  to  hold  our  own  vocation  unlawful  without  them." 
"  And,"  says  Fulke,  "  you  are  highly  deceived  if  you  think 
we  esteem  your  offices  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons, 
better  than  laymen."  (And  in  his  Retentive  :)  "  With  all 
our  hearts  we  defy,  abhor,  detest, — your  antichristian  orders  "\ 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Twenty-third 
Article,  says,  "  I  come,  in  the  next  place,  to  consider  the 
second  part  of  this  article,  which  is  the  definition  here 
given  of  those  that  are  lawfully  called  and  sent:  this  is 
put  in  very  general  words,  far  from  that  magisterial  stiff- 
ness in  which  some  have  taken  upon  them  to  dictate  in 

*  Burnet's  Coll.  of  Records,  part  i,  book  iii,  No.  21. 

+  See  Ward's  England's  Reformation,  vol.  ii,  p.  121,  where  he  refers 
to  Whitaker  Contra  Dureum,  p.  221,  and  Fulke's  Answer  to  a  Coun- 
terfeit Catholic. 

12 


266       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

this  matter.  The  article  does  not  resolve  this  into  any 
particular  constitution,  but  leaves  the  matter  open  and  at 
large,  for  such  accidexts  as  had  happened,  and  such  as 
might  still  happen.  They  who  drew  it  had  the  state  of 
several  churches  before  their  eyes  that  had  been  differently 
reformed,  and  although  their  own  had  been  less  forced  to 
go  out  of  the  beaten  path  than  any  other,  yet  they  knew 
that  ALL  THINGS  among  thejnselves  had  not  gone  according 
to  those  rules  that  ought  to  be  sacred  in  regular  times. 
Necessity  has  no  law,  and  is  a  law  to  itself.  If  a  company 
of  Christians  find  the  public  worship  where  they  live  to  be 
so  defiled,  that  they  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  join  in 
it ;  and  if  they  do  not  knov/  of  any  place  to  which  they 
can  conveniently  go,  where  they  may  worship  God  purely 
and  in  a  regular  way  :  if,  I  say,  such  a  body  find  some  that 
have  been  ordained,  though  to  the  lower  functions,  should 
submit  itself  entirely  to  their  conduct ;  or  find  none  of 
those,  should,  by  a  common  consent,  desire  some  of  their 
own  number  to  minister  to  them  in  holy  things,  and  should, 
upon  that  beginning,  grow  up  to  a  regulated  constitution, 
though  we  are  very  sure  that  this  is  quite  out  of  all  rule, 
and  could  not  be  done  without  a  very  great  sin,  unless  the 
necessity  were  great  and  apparent ;  yet  if  the  necessity  is 
real  and  not  feigned,  this  is  not  condemned  nor  annulled 
hy  the  article ;  for  when  this  grows  to  a  constitution,  and 
when  it  was  begun  by  the  consent  of  a  body,  who  are 
supposed  to  have  an  authority  in  such  an  extraordinary 
case,  whatever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this 
since  that  time  ;  yet  we  are  very  sure  that  not  only  those 
who  penned  the  articles,  but  the  body  of  this  church  for 
above  half  an  age  after  did,  notwithstanding  those  irregu- 
larities, acknowledge  the  foreign  churches  so  constituted 
to  be  TRUE  churches,  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  church, 
though  they  had  been  at  first  irregularly  formed,  and 
continue  to  be  in  an  imperfect  state.  And  therefore  the 
general  words  in  which  this  part  of  the  article  is  framed 
seem  to  have  been  designed  on  purpose  not  to  exclude 
them"*     This  is  worthy  of  the  great  reformers !    I  need 

*  Burnet's  account  of  his  work  is  interesting :  "  I  had  been  first 
moved  to  undertake  this  work  by  that  great  prelate,"  Tillotson,  "who 
then  sat  at  the  helm ;  and  after  that,  [was]  determined  in  it  by  a  com- 
mand that  was  sacred  to  me  by  respect,  as  well  as  by  duty.     Our  late 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        267 

not  say  what  a  figure  Dr.  Hook  and  the  Oxford  Tract-men 
cut  in  the  presence  of  such  a  statement. 

The  great  reformers  and  champions  of  the  Reformation 
knew  how  to  distinguish  between  what  was  essential  to 
the  FORMATION  of  a  church  in  tiines  of  difficulty,  persecu- 
tion, or  confusion,  and  what  was  prudent,  proper,  and 
orderly  in  a  settled  and  peaceable  state  of  the  church.  The 
following  passage  from  the  Epistles  of  that  great  reformer, 
John  Calvin,  second  to  none  in  his  day  in  talents,  zeal, 
and  influence  in  the  Reformation,  will  show  this  :  "  Con- 
sider this  matter  fully  now, — suppose  a  person,  in  a  foreign 
region,  desires  the  opportunity  and  ability  of  gathering  to- 
gether a  flock  for  Christ ;  will  not  those  who  are  in  that 
place,  and  who  agree  to  receive  his  ministry,  by  that  very 
act  of  receiving  him,  elect  him  as  their  minister,  even 
though  no  rite  be  used  in  the  matter  ?    I  confess,  indeed, 

primate  lived  long  enough  to  see  the  design  finished.  He  read  it  over 
with  an  exactness  that  was  peculiar  to  him.  He  employed  some  weeks 
wholly  in  perusing  it,  and  he  corrected  it  with  a  care  that  descended 
even  to  the  smallest  matters ;  and  was  such  as  he  thought  became  the 
importance  of  the  work.  And  when  that  was  done,  he  returned  it  to 
me  with  a  letter,  that  as  it  was  the  last  I  ever  received  from  him,  so 
gave  the  whole  such  a  character,  that  how  much  soever  that  might 
raise  its  value  with  true  judges,  yet  in  decency  it  must  be  suppressed 
by  me,  as  going  far  beyond  what  any  performance  of  mine  could  de- 
serve. He  gave  so  favourable  an  account  of  it  to  our  late  blessed 
queen,  that  she  was  pleased  to  tell  me  she  would  find  leisure  to  read 
it ;  and  the  last  time  I  was  admitted  to  the  honour  of  waiting  on  her,  she 
commanded  me  to  bring  it  to  her.  But  she  was  soon  after  that  carried 
to  the  Source,  to  the  Fountain  of  life,  in  whose  light  she  now  sees  both 
light  and  truth.  So  great  a  breach  as  was  then  made  upon  all  our 
hopes,  put  a  stop  upon  this,  as  well  as  upon  much  greater  designs." 
"  This  work  has  lien  by  me  ever  since  :  but  has  been  often  not  only 
reviewed  by  myself,  but  by  much  better  judges.  The  late  most  learned 
bishop  of  Worcester,"  Stillingfleet,  "  read  it  very  carefully.  He  marked 
every  thing  in  it  that  he  thought  needed  a  review :  and  his  censure  was 
in  all  points  submitted  to.  He  expressed  himself  so  well  pleased  with 
it,  to  myself  and  to  some  others,  that  I  do  not  think  it  becomes  me  to 
repeat  what  he  said  of  it.  Both  the  most  reverend  archbishops,  with 
several  of  the  bishops,  and  a  great  many  learned  divines,  have  also  read 
it.  I  must,  indeed,  on  many  accounts  own  that  they  may  be  inclined 
to  favour  me  too  much,  and  to  be  too  partial  to  me  ;  yet  they  looked 
upon  this  work  as  a  thing  of  that  importance,  that  I  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve they  read  it  over  severely  :  and  if  some  small  corrections  may  be 
taken  for  an  indication  that  they  saw  no  occasion  for  greater  ones,  I 
had  this  likewise  from  several  of  them." — Preface,  pp.  1,  2,  fol.  Load., 
1699.     These  things  are  important. 


268        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

that  where  a  due  order  of  doing  such  things  has  beE:^ 
ESTABLISHED  in  any  church,  it  ought  to  be  maintained, 
fixed,  and  immoveable  ;  but  the  case  is  widely  different, 
where  the  very  foundations  have  to  be  laid  anew.  For 
what  shall  we  say  as  to  most  of  the  churches  raised  up 
by  the  Lord  through  Germany  ?  Shall  we  deny  that  those 
who  first  laboured  there  in  preaching  the  gospel  were  re- 
ceived as  true  pastors,  though  no  rite  accompanied  their 
admission  to  that  office  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  bind  you  to  the 
authority  of  men ;  but  I  produce  this  example  as  confirm- 
ing the  position  I  laid  down,  viz.,  that  the  election  or  ap- 
pointment of  a  minister  is  not  necessarily  the  same  in  an 
unsettled  state  of  a  church,  as  it  is  where  a  certain  form 
and  order  have  been  already  established."*  This  is  the 
view  of  the  Scriptures,  of  the  earliest  fathers,  and  of  the 
greatest  reformers.  The  contrary  opinion  is  indeed  be- 
longing to  the  very  essence  of  Popery.  It  is  an  attempt 
to  make  that  necessary  which  God  never  made  so ;  and 
then  to  bind  the  church  to  human  ordinations,  personal 
succession,  episcopal  consecrations,  priestly  absolutions : 
even  while,  by  undeniable  history,  many  of  these  men 
have  been  wicked,  heretics,  murderers,  simonists,  traffick- 
ers in  the  souls  and  bodies  of  mankind,  shedding  the  blood 
of  the  saints,  and  leading  mankind  to  destruction ! 

The  case  of  the  English  reformers  was  a  difficult  one. 
They  saw  the  truth  ;  but  a  great  part  of  the  nation  was 
still  under  much  Popish  ignorance.  The  case  very  much 
resembled  that  of  St,  Paul  with  those  Jews  who  were  still 
zealous  for  the  law  of  Moses.  Paul,  as  a  mere  prudential 
measure,  took  Timothy  and  circumcised  him,  rejecting  the 
obligation  of  circumcision  as  essential  to  Christianity. 
The  English  reformers,  as  a  prudential  measure,  because 
of  the  multitudes  who  were  still  zealous  for  the  ceremonies 
of  Popery,  retained,  in  form,  the  ordination  and  consecra- 
tion of  the  Popish  bishops ;  not  because  of  their  validity 
and  necessity,  by  divine  right,  to  the  existence  of  the 
Christian  church  and  Christian  ordinances  ;  for  they  main- 
tained the  contrary.  The  primitive  church  lived  down 
those  Jewish  prejudices ;  and  circumcision,  even  as  a 
circumstance,  was  utterly  put  away.  The  Anglican  church 
should  have  done  the  same.  It  should  have  gone  on  to 
*  Epist.,  p.  349,  edit.  Gen.,  1575. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        269 

declare  boldly,  that  the  ordination  of  its  ministers  was 
based  on  the  spiritual  and  Scriptural  qualijications  of  the 
men ;  upon  the  call  of  God^  moving  them  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  take  upon  them  the  ministry ;  and  upon  the  call 
of  the  church,  solemnly  receiving  them  as  the  ministers  of 
God,  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son.  It  has  failed  to  do  this ; 
and  the  strenuous  attempts  made  by  many  of  its  erring 
advocates  to  maintain  the  essential  importance  of  Popish 
ordinations,  episcopal  consecration,  personal  succession,  &c. 
— these  efforts,  I  say,  have  resulted  in  a  constant  leaning 
to  Popery,  in  many  divines  and  members  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Wherever  and  by  whomsoever  these  things 
are  thus  maintained,  that  church  becomes  a  half-way  house 
to  Popery. 

Both  the  foreign  and  English  reformers  had  great  fears 
about  what  was  left  in  the  Church  of  England  of  Popish 
origin,  lest  it  should  afterward  lead  to  the  strengthening 
of  Popery.  Cranmer  and  his  coadjutors  did  what  they 
could,  according  to  the  times,  and  hoped  their  successors 
would  finish  what  they  had  begun.  Calvin,  writing  to 
Cranmer,  A.  D.  1551,  then  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
says,  "  But  to  speak  freely,  I  greatly  fear,  and  the  fear  is 
becoming  general  here,  lest  by  so  much  delay,  the  autumn 
or  harvest  should  pass,  and  at  length  the  coldness  of  a 
perpetual  winter  should  succeed.  You  will  need  to  stimu- 
late yourself,  as  the  burden  of  old  age  steals  upon  you  ; 
lest  in  leaving  the  world  your  conscience  should  distress 
you,  because,  through  some  tardiness  in  proceeding,  all 
things  should  be  left  in  confusion.  I  mention  things  as 
being  in  confusion,  because  outward  superstitions  are  so 
corrected  as  to  leave  innumerable  branches  that  will  be  con- 
stantly sprouting  out  again.  Indeed,  I  hear  that  such  a 
mass  of  Popish  corruptioxs  remain,  as  not  only  ob- 
scure, but  almost  bury  the  pure  and  genuine  worship  of 
God."*  That  Cranmer  was  not  offended  with  this  plain- 
ness is  evident,  for,  in  apparently  a  later  letter,  Calvin  says 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  admonished  him  "  that  he 
could  not  do  a  more  useful  thing  than  to  write  frequently 
to  the  king."t  The  Popish,  and  semi-popish  bishops 
and  divines,  conforming  and  nonconforming,  did  their 
utmost  to  hinder  the  removal  of  these  evils.  There  is  a 
*  Cahini  Epist.,  p.  101.  t  Page  384. 


270        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

letter  to  Calvin  from  a  venerable,  aged,  sorrowing,  and 
almost  dying  person  on  this  subject,  dated  Cambridge, 
1550,  pp.  96,  97.  Zanchy  wrote  a  bold  letter  to  Queen 
Elizabeth  on  the  Popish  vestments,  requesting  her  not  to 
enforce  them,  1571.  The  meek  and  peaceful  Peter  Mar- 
tyr, who  spent  a  long  time  at  Oxford,  endeavouring  to  pro- 
mote and  defend  the  Reformation,  was  written  to  by  the 
venerable  Hooper,  bishop  of  Gloucester,  on  the  subject  of 
the  Popish  vestments.  Hooper  withstood  their  use.  Mar- 
tyr, at  that  time,  writing  in  answer  to  Hooper's  letter, 
declares  he  most  entirely  approves  of  their  removal^  but 
thinks  that  as  they  were  not  fundamental  matters,  they 
might  be  tolerated  for  a  time  :  and  then,  afterward,  in- 
creasing piety  in  the  church  would  remove  them :  "  for," 
says  he,  "  if  we  first  allow  the  gospel  time  to  be  propa- 
gated, and  strike  deep  its  roots,  men  will  then  perhaps  be 
persuaded  better  and  more  easily  to  remove  these  external 
trappings."  This  letter  is  dated  1550.  However,  in  a 
few  years  he  altogether  changed  his  mind.  Writing  to 
the  Popish  nobles,  (professing  to  embrace  the  gospel,)  and 
to  their  ministers,  after  recommending  them  to  take  care 
that  "  no  splendour  of  names  or  titles,  no  kings,  no  fathers, 
no  bishops,  no  popes,  no  councils,  &c.,  should  blind  their 
eyes  ; — that  the  Scriptures  alone  should  be  the  supreme 
and  infallible  rule  of  their  faith  ;"  he  comes  to  say,  "  Use 
all  your  vigilance,  brethren,  that  the  house  of  God,  defiled, 
and  almost  destroyed  by  antichrist,  should  be  with  diligent 
care  rebuilt.  Extirpate  utterly  all  superstitious  and  false 
notions.  This  I  the  rather  admonish,  because  /  have  seen 
some  who  have  only  cropt  the  leaves,  and  flowers,  and 
buds  of  old  superstition  :  but,  having  spared  the  roots, 
they  afterward  shot  up  again  to  the  great  injury  of  the  Lord's 
vineyard.  Let  all  the  seeds  of  evil,  and  the  rottenness  of 
the  roots  be  extirpated  in  the  beginning.  For  if  this  be 
neglected  at  the  first,  (I  know  what  I  say,)  afterward  it 
will  be  much  more  difficult  to  pluck  them  up." — February 
14th,  1556.  And  see  Bishop  Burnet's  Letters;  the  one 
from  Zurich,  p.  55,  London,  1727,  where  he  shows  that 
the  bishops  Jewel,  Home,  Cranmer,  Grindal,  took  the 
same  views,  but  that  the  queen  was  obstinately  opposed 
to  the  removal  of  these  things. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        271 

SECTION  XIV. 

GENUINE    APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION. 

We  have  now  searched  this  pseudo-apostolical  succes- 
sion scheme  to  the  bottom,  and  have  found  it  a  baseless 
fabric.  Those  who  have  attempted  its  construction,  what- 
ever they  might  be  besides,  have  in  this  displayed  a  dis- 
position to  erect  a  system  of  spiritual  tyranny  over  the 
whole  church  of  God.  Many  have  been  deceived  by 
them.  Multitudes  of  the  holiest  people  upon  earth  have, 
in  different  ages,  suffered  bonds,  imprisonment,  and  death, 
under  the  operation  of  this  antichristian  scheme.  It  will 
be  proper  to  exhibit  in  a  closing  section  a  view  of  genu- 
ine APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION — the  succcssiou  of  truth  and 
holiness.  God  has  always  had  a  true  church  :  and  he 
always  will  have  a  true  church.  The  gates  of  hell  never 
have  prevailed  against  it ;  and  we  are  assured  by  himself 
that  they  never  shall.  This  church  has  always  stood,  as 
to  its  foundation,  on  the  truth,  and  faithfulness,  and  power 
of  God;  and  never  on  any  ceremonies  or  circumstances  of 
church  government,  or  any  order  of  men:  thus  it  loill  stand 

FOR  EVER. 

Let  us  review  the  past. — In  the  brief  divine  history 
which  we  have  of  the  antediluvian  world,  there  is  no  inti- 
mation that  the  church  depended  on  any  order  of  men,  as 
ministers  of  religion.  That  there  were  preachers  of  right- 
eousness, is  plainly  testified  in  the  Scriptures.  But  from 
all  that  we  can  learn,  they  were  not  confined  to  any  unin- 
terrupted succession,  nor  even  initiated  by  any  rite  of 
ordination.  They  appear  to  have  been  good  men,  who, 
(blessed  with  the  knowledge  of  God's  favour  to  themselves, 
and  of  his  plan  of  saving  sinners,)  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  testify  the  judgments  of  God  against  sin,  and 
his  mercy  to  those  who  returned  to  him  by  repentance,  and 
by  trust  in  that  mercy.  This  was  the  case  for  about  two 
thousand  years.  From  the  deluge  to  Moses  matters 
continued  in  the  same  state.  The  priesthood  of  Aaron 
was  designed  to  typify  the  priesthood  of  Christ :  as  much 
oneness,  therefore,  and  continuity  was  given  to  it  as  human 
things  would  allow.     Hence  a  personal  succession,  in  one 


272        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

family,  was  the  general  principle  of  the  high  priesthood. 
Yet  this  was  sometimes  changed  by  divine  direction ;  but 
what  is  more,  it  was  broken  and  interrupted  by  men ; 
and  yet  those  who  ministered  in  that  office,  though  not  of 
the  succession,  were  not  repudiated  on  this  account  even  by 
our  Lord  himself,  or  his  apostles.  Dr.  Hammond,  a  com- 
petent and  unexceptionable  authority,  gives  the  following 
account  of  this  matter  :  "  At  this  time  the  land  being 
under  the  Roman  emperor,  the  succession  of  the  high  priests 
was  now  changed,  the  one  lineal  descendant  in  the  family 
of  Aaron,  which  was  to  continue  for  life,  being  not  permit- 
ted to  succeed,  but  some  other,  whom  he  pleased,  named  to 
that  office  by  the  Roman  procurator  every  year,  or  renewed 
as  often  as  he  pleased.  To  which  purpose  is  that  of  The- 
ophylact :  '  They  who  were  at  that  time  high  priests  of 
the  Jews,  invaded  that  dignity,  bought  it,  and  so  destroyed 
the  law,  which  prescribed  a  succession  in  the  family  of 
Aaron.'  It  is  manifest,  that  at  this  time  the  Roman  prcs- 
feet  did,  ad  libitum,  when  he  would,  and  that  sometimes 
once  a  year,  put  in  whom  he  pleased  into  the  pontificate, 
to  officiate  in  Aaron's  office,  instead  of  the  lineal  descend- 
ant from  him.  And  that  is  it  of  which  Josephus  so  fre- 
quently makes  mention.  After  the  race  of  the  Assamonaei,  it 
seems  Jesus,  the  son  of  Phoebes  was  put  in ;  then  he  be- 
ing put  out,  Simon  is  put  in  his  stead  ;  this  Simon  put  out, 
and  Matthias  in  his  stead.  Ant.,  1.  17,  c.  6, — then  Mat- 
thias put  out  by  Herod  about  the  time  of  Christ's  birth,  and 
Joazar  put  in  his  stead,  Ant.,  1.  17,  c.  8, — then  Joazar  put 
out  by  Archelaus,  and  Eleazar  put  in,  c.  15;  and  he  again 
put  out,  and  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sia,  put  in.  Then  in  the  first  of 
Quirinus,  there  is  mention  again  of  Joazar,  son  of  Boethi- 
us,  1.  18,  c.  1,  who  it  seems  was  put  in,  and  so  turned 
out  again  by  Quirinus  the  same  year,  and  Ananus,  the  son 
of  Seth,  put  in  his  stead,  who  was  the  Annas  here  men- 
tioned by  St.  Luke.  Then  Gratus,  at  the  beginning  of 
Tiberius's  reign,  put  out  Annas  and  put  in  Ismael :  and  in 
his  stead  Eleazar,  i\.nnas's  son  ;  then  in  his  stead  Simon ; 
and  after  his  year,  Caiaphas  here,  who  continued  from 
that,  all  his  and  Pilate's  time,  till  Vitellius  displaced  him, 
and  put  Jonathan,  another  son  of  Annas,  in  his  stead;  and 
in  his,  a  year  or  two  after,  Theophilus,  another  son  of  An- 
nas, whom  Agrippa  again  displaced,  Ant.,  1.  xix,  c.  5,  and 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       273 

put  in  Simon  ;  and  turning  him  out  the  same  year,  put  in 
Matthias,  a  fourth  son  of  Annas,  in  the  beginning  of  Clau- 
dius's reign,  some  nine  years  after  the  death  of  Christ ;  and 
soon  removing  him,  put  in  Elioneus,  c.  7.  Then  it  seems 
Canthares  was  put  in,  for  in  his  place  Herod  put  in  Joseph, 
1.  XX,  c.  1  ;  and  in  his  stead,  about  fifteen  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  Ananias,  son  of  Nebedeus,  c.  3.  After  him 
we  find  Jonathan,  then  Ismael,  then  Joseph,  then  Annas, 
another  son  of  Annas,  then  Jesus,  son  of  Damneus,  then  Je- 
sus, son  of  Gamaliel,  then  Matthias,  in  whose  time  the  Jew- 
ish war  began."*  Theophylact,  we  find,  says  that  the  law 
of  succession  was  destroyed  by  these  confusions.  Had  our 
succession  divines  been  doctors  of  the  law  at  the  time,  they 
must  have  made  it  out  that  the  church  of  God  then  became 
extinguished  :  yet  we  never  find  a  single  intimation  of 
the  kind  by  our  Lord  or  his  apostles.  From  the  creation, 
therefore^  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  church  never  was  built 
on  any  men,  or  order  of  men,  but  was  founded  in  the  living 
God. 

A  GOSPEL  MINISTRY  is  God's  own  positive  institution. 
Ministers  are  God's  gifts  to  the  church.  When  they  are 
what  they  ought  to  be,  they  are  of  very  great  importance 
and  utility ;  but  when  any  of  them  become  lords  over 
God's  heritage,  God  can  lay  them  aside,  and  their  personal 
succession  too,  and  can  raise  up  others  who  shall  walk 
more  fully  after  his  will,  and  whose  ministry  he  will  con- 
firm and  bless  by  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  the 
increased  holiness  and  edification  of  his  people.  This  the 
history  of  the  church  in  all  ages  testifies.  Without  design- 
ing to  say  one  word  against  episcopacy,  meaning  by  that  a 
prudential  and  well-guarded  superintendency ;  or  against  the 
simple  fact  of  a  succession  of  ministers,  suppose  it  could 
be  proved  to  be  true, — both  of  which,  if  not  urged  to  ac- 
complish purposes  of  exclusion  and  persecution  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  may  be  great  blessings  ;  yet  let  the  truth  be 
spoken  as  to  the  fact  of  the  operation  of  episcopacy,  as 
hitherto  established,  and  of  the  scheme  of  succession  as  it 
has  existed  hitherto  in  general  in  the  Christian  church  : 
both  have  been  at  the  head  of  nearly  all  the  oppression 
and  persecution  that  have  been  found  in  the  church  to  the 
present  day.     I  say,  as  they  have  existed.     But  the  abuse 

*  Hammond's  note  on  Luke  iii,  v.  2. 
12* 


274        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

is  no  valid  argument  against  the  use*  I  believe  abuse 
very  early  got  into  the  church  in  an  unguarded  and  not 
sufficiently  controlled  form  of  episcopacy.  It  generated 
into  tyranny  of  the  worst  kind.  Popery  is  its  genuine  off- 
spring. Great,  however,  as  I  acknowledge  the  abuse  to  have 
been,  I  do  still  think,  that,  under  just  regulations,  it  might 
have  an  important  use.  The  names  of  kings  and  tyrants 
were  synonymous  in  ancient  times  ;  and  both  were  alike 
hated.  But  what  true  Englishman  will  say  that  the  office 
of  king,  as  supreme  civil  magistrate,  under  just  regulations, 
that  is,  a  limited  monarchy,  is  not  a  blessing  ?  Whoever 
would  say  so, — the  writer  would  not.  Let  episcopacy, 
then,  be  placed  under  such  regulations  and  restraints  as 
shall  not  admit  of  any  claim  of  divine  right  on  the  part  of 
bishops  for  their  superintendency  and  government.  Let 
those  who  value  episcopacy,  and  especially  the  bishops 
themselves,  correct  all  abuses  in  the  system.  The  Eng- 
lish reformers  placed  it  generally  on  the  right  basis  :  the 
detail  wanted  perfecting.  Time  has  shown  the  defects  of 
the  detail :  let  experience  teach  wisdom.  If  these  things 
be  not  done,  let  no  man  trust  an  unguarded  episcopacy ;  it 
will  do  ichat  it  has  always  done,  viz.,  degenerate  into 
Popery. 

Whenever  a  true  revival  of  vital  godliness  has  taken 
place,  it  has  usually  been  done,  not  by  the  pretended  suc- 
cession bishops,  but  generally,  in  spite  of  them  :  it  has  been 
done — NOT  by  those  whom  succession-men  assume  to  have 
had  the  sole  power  among  mankind  of  continuing  the 
church  of  God  upon  earth ;  but  by  those  who,  according 
to  their  absurd  scheme,  had  no  power  to  continue  it  beyond 
a  sijigle  generation,  even  if  they  had  so  much  as  that. 
The  Waldenses,  in  the  valleys  of  the  Alps ;  the  Lollards 
in  England  ;  Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  Zuingle  and 
Knox ;  the  Puritans  in  their  day ;  and  the  Wesleys  and 
Whitefield  in  still  later  times,  are  all  in  full  proof  of  what 
I  say.  The  English  reformers  themselves  do  not  con- 
stitute an  exception  to  this  remark.  Who  broke  up  the 
fallow  ground  ?  who  soiced  the  seed  of  the  Reformation  in 
England  1  and  who  watered  it  with  their  tears  and  with 
their  blood,  before  Henry  VIII.  quarrelled  with  the  pope  ? 
— the  bishops  ?  O,  no  !  no  !  they  imprisoned,  and  shed 
the  blood  of  the  saints  like  water  ;  but,  as  an  order  of  min- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        275 

isters,  they  sided  with  antichrist  till  Henry  quarrelled  with 
the  pope.  For  full  proof  of  all  this  see  Fox's  Book  of 
Martyrs.  Protestantism  had  its  worst  enemies  among  the 
apostolical  succession  bishops.  I  rejoice  to  except,  after 
that  time,  and  record  with  due  praise,  such  hallowed  names 
as  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  Hooper,  and  Jewel ;  but  they 
are  the  exceptions  and  not  the  rule.  And  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that,  since  that  time,  all  the  persecution  of  the  Puri- 
tans and  Nonconformists  originated  generally  with  the 
bishops.  It  is  intolerable  to  see  the  public  mind  abused 
by  the  grandiloquence  often  employed  in  speaking  about 
episcopacy  as  it  has  existed  ;  the  blessing  of  bishops  ;  of 
an  apostolical  ministry  coming  through  the  hands  of  bish- 
ops, &;c.  Grotius  has  never  been  suspected  of  disaffection 
to  episcopacy  or  bishops ;  yet  he  speaks  thus  plainly — 
"  Qui  ecclesiasticam  historiam  legit,  quid  legit  nisi  episcopo- 
rum  vitia? — He  who  reads  ecclesiastical  history,  what 
does  he  read  but  the  vices  of  bishops  ?"* 

Let  us  distinguish  between  what  things  have  been,  and 
what  they  ought  to  be.  Every  true  minister  is  a  Scriptural 
bishop.  Every  modern  bishop  is  a  mere  superintendent 
by  the  right  of  human  authority.  Many  excellent  men 
have  been  found  among  the  bishops.  This  office  is  im- 
portant, and  may  be  highly  useful  under  proper  regulations. 
Hitherto  it  has  been  wanting  in  these  regulations  in  what 
are  called  Episcopal  churches  ;  and  it  has  been,  on  the 
whole,  the  source  of  great  evils  to  the  church  at  large.  Let 
it  be  restored  to  its  proper  use.  Then  call  that  form  of 
church  government  by  what  name  you  please.  No  wise 
man  will  quarrel  about  names.  Against  a  duly  regulated 
episcopacy,  as  already  explained,  we  have  nothing  to  say. 
Episcopacy  hy  divine  right  is  a  modern  invention :  it  has 
been  the  source  of  much  oppression.  The  personal  succes- 
sion scheme  is  a  scheme  adopted  at  present  hy  bigots  for 
the  purpose  of  persecution.  We  have  treated  both 
without  ceremony.  Both  are  false — both  lead  to  Popery. 
The  succession  of  faith  is  the  only  succession  essential  to 
a  Christian  church. 

Accordingly,  the  fathers  took  this  as  the  only  supreme 
and  essential  rule  of  succession, y'vL.,  \\\Qpr  caching  o{\\\Q  truth, 
oi  the  faith,  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  apostles.     See 
*  Grotii  Epistolac,  No.  22,  p.  7.   Amstel,  1687. 


276        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  quotations  following  ;  also  sec.  vi.  Now  who  have 
been  distinguished  for  this  apostolic  preaching  ? — the 
bishops  and  the  great  succession-men  ?  By  no  means ! 
Leave  out  the  first  six  hundred  years  ;  they  do  not  belong 
to  these  men  ;  their  doctrine  of  succession  was  not  then 
held :  the  only  essential  succession  then  maintained  was 
the  succession  of  faith.  Since  that  time — who  have  been 
distinguished  for  apostolical  preaching? — the  bishops  of 
Rome  ?  Nay,  they  have  generally  not  preached  at  all. 
Bishop  Jewel  in  his  day  remarked,  "  These  nine  hundred 
years,  I  say,  since  Gregory  the  first  of  that  name,  [A.  D. 
604,]  it  can  hardly  be  found  that  ever  any  bishop  of  Rome 
toas  seen  in  a  pulpit. ^^  Sermon  on  Matt,  x,  9.  The 
same  thing  is  true,  to  a  great  extent,  of  all  the  bishops  of 
that  church,  and  of  all  the  branches  of  it  up  to  the  Re- 
formation. Hear  Bishop  Jewel  again,  in  his  sermon  on 
1  Cor.  iv,  1,2,"  Christ  said  unto  Peter,  Lovest  thou  me  ? 
feed  my  sheep,  feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  flock.  But  our 
great  clerkes,  our  popes,  our  cardinals,  our  bishops,  would 
seldom  or  never  make  a  sermon  :  they  fed  not  God's  sheepe, 
they  fed  not  God's  lambs,  they  had  no  regard  to  God's 
flocke  :  and  how  then  would  they  say,  they  were  the  min- 
isters of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  God's  secrets  ?  I  leave 
out  much  of  purpose,  good  brethren,  I  wittingly  overpasse 
heere  many  things  else  that  I  could  say  heerein :  the  time 
would  faile  me,  if  I  should  rehearse  unto  you  all  those  things 
wherein  they  have  most  shamefully  abused  themselves." 
They  were,  as  a  ivhole,  the  opposers  and  corrupters  of 
the  TRUTH.  They  formed  one  continued  heresy.  The 
apostolical  preachers  were  the  Waldenses,  the  Lollards, 
Wickliffe,  Huss,  and  their  coadjutors ;  none  of  them  suc- 
cession bishops,  nor  their  partizans,  but  the  very  opposite, 
and  generally  out  of  this  pretended  succession.  Since  the 
Reformation,  the  Protestant  churches  in  general  have  been 
out  of  this  pretended  succession.  Whether  the  succession 
were  true  or  false,  the  early  bishops  of  the  Church  of 
England  claimed  no  exclusive  rights  and  authority  from  it. 
Luther,  Calvin,  Zuingle,  P.  Martyr,  Melancthon,  &c.,  &c., 
were  not  of  it,  as  founders  or  reformers  of  churches. 
Since  the  time  of  Bancroft  and  Laud,  the  bishops  and 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  have  been  greatly  sur- 
passed in  apostolical  preaching  by  the  Puritans,  the  Non- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        277 

conformists,  the  Dissenters,  and  the  Methodists.  The 
limits  of  this  Essay  allow  not  of  an  extended  comparison, 
but  the  thing  speaks  for  itself.  Laud's  plan,  but  for  the 
Puritans,  would  have  brought  in  Popery,  The  age  of 
mere  rationalism  in  preaching  was  not  a  match  for  infi- 
delity. It  wanted  Christ  crucified,  and  the  demox- 
STRATiox  of  the  Spirit.  The  reader  may  see  some  good 
observations  and  illustrations  on  the  point  of  rational 
preaching  by  the  leading  divines  of  the  Establishment  from 
about  1700,  &c.,  in  the  Rev.  Edward  Bickersteth's  excel- 
lent work,  "  The  Christian  Student,"  chap,  ix,  sec.  6.  The 
following  passages  from  that  work  are  strikingly  to  the 
point.  He  quotes  Dr.  Vicesimus  Knox,  as  saying,  in  his 
"  Christian  Philosophy,"  that  he  who  receives  divine 
teaching  "  will  find  that  some  of  the  most  learned  men, 
the  most  voluminous  writers  on  theological  subjects,  were 
totally  ignorant  of  Christianity.  He  will  find  that  they 
were  ingenious  heathen  philosophers,  assuming  the  name 
of  Christians,  and  forcibly  paganizing  Christianity  for  the 
sake  of  pleasing  the  world,  of  extending  their  fame,  and 
enjoying  secular  honours  and  lucrative  pre-eminence." 
Bishop  Lavington,  says  Mr.  Bickersteth,  may  be  introduced 
as  another  unexceptionable  testimony  on  this  subject. 
This  bishop  says,  addressing  the  clergy,  (somewhere  about 
1750,)  "  My  brethren,  I  beg  yoa  will  rise  up  with  me 
against  moral  preaching.  We  have  long  been  attempting 
the  reformation  of  the  nation  by  discourses  of  this  kind. 
With  what  success  1 — None  at  all.     On  the  contrary,  we 

HAVE  DEXTEROUSLY  PREACHED  THE  PEOPLE  INTO  DOWN- 
RIGHT INFIDELITY.  We  must  change  our  voice.  We 
must  preach  Christ,  and  him  crucified.  Nothing  but  the 
gospel  is,  nothing  besides  will  be  found  to  be,  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation.  Let  me,  therefore,  again  and  again 
request,  may  I  not  add,  let  me  charge  you,  to  preach  Jesus 
and  salvation  through  his  name." 

Mr.  Bickersteth  is  an  excellent  man,  and,  on  the 
whole,  a  candid  writer ;  but  it  seengs  to  have  been  too 
much  for  him,  as  it  has  been  for  many  others,  to  do  any 
thing  like  justice  to  the  labours  of  the  Wesleys  and 
W^hitefield,  as  instruments  of  divine  Providence  in  the 
glorious  revival  of  religion  which  has  taken  place  since 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century.   Any  statement  by 


278        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

the  writer,  as  a  Wesleyan,  might  be  thought  partial.  It 
may  not  be  amiss,  therefore,  to  give  the  testimony  of  tlie 
Rev.  Dr.  Haw^eis,  himself  a  clergyman,  from  his  History 
of  the  Church  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  He  says, 
"  Through  the  moralists  in  the  pulpit,  and  the  deists  in  the 
press,  Christianity  was  reduced  to  a  very  emaciated  figure. 
Even  the  Dissenters,  who  affected  greater  purity  of  religion, 
had  drunk  deep  into  the  general  apostacy,  and  sunk  into  a 
worldly,  careless  spirit.  The  Presbyterians,  especially, 
diverged  into  the  errors  of  Arianism.  The  Independents 
were  few,  and  but  little  attended  to  ;  though  among  them 
the  sounder  doctrines  were  maintained,  but  in  general  too 
cold  and  dead-hearted  ;  and  the  Baptists  hardly  had  a 
name.  The  Quakers,  left  to  their  silent  meetings,  were 
declining  and  forgotten ;  and  the  other  sects  sunk  into 
insignificance.  It  was  in  this  state  of  torpor  and  depart- 
ure from  truth  and  godliness,  [A.  D.  1729,]  that  at  Oxford, 
one  of  our  universities,  a  few,  chiefly  young  men,  began 
to  feel  the  deplorable  spiritual  ignorance  and  corrup- 
tion around  them.  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  the  first 
and  most  distinguished  leaders  in  this  revival  of  evangelical 
truth,  were  brothers  :  the  one,  fellow  of  Lincoln  College  ; 
the  other,  student  of  Christ  Church  [College.]  With  these 
associated  a  number  of  other  students,  whose  minds  were 
similarly  affected.  Mr.  Ingham,  Mr.  Whitefield,  and  Mr. 
Hervey,  were  afterv/ard  peculiarly  distinguished.  The 
multitudes  which  followed  them  were  much  affected  :  a 
great  and  visible  change  was  produced  in  the  minds  of 
many.  The  attention  paid  to  these  ministers,  and  the 
blessing  evident  on  their  labours,  roused  them  to  increas- 
ing vigorous  exertions.  They  were  always  at  their  work, 
preaching  wherever  they  could  procure  admittance  into  the 
churches. 

"  Though  in  age  Mr.  Whitefield  was  younger  than  the 
Wesleys,  yet  in  zeal  and  labours  he  had  no  superior :  his 
amazing  exertions  are  well  known,  and  the  effects  of  them 
were  prodigious  through  the  whole  land.  He  confined 
not  his  ministry  to  England — Scotland  enjoyed  the  benefit 
of  his  visits,  and  furnished  innumerable  evidences  of  the 
power  with  which  he  spoke  ;  nor  were  his  efforts  restrict- 
ed to  Britain,  but  extended  to  America,  whither  the  Mr. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        279 

Wesleys  had  first  led  the  way.  Suffice  it  to  observe,  that 
by  the  labours  of  these  indefatigable  men,  a  flood  of  gospel 
light  broke  upon  the  nation.  At  first  they  were  wholly 
confined  to  the  Church  of  England,  as  their  attachment  to 
it  by  education  was  strong :  and  had  they  been  fixed  in 
any  settled  station,  they  had,  not  improbably,  lived  and 
died  good  men,  useful  men,  but  unnoticed  and  unknown. 
A  series  of  providences  had  designed  them  for  greater  and 
more  extensive  usefulness.  The  churches  growing  una- 
ble to  contain  the  crowds  which  flocked  after  them,  Mr. 
Whitefield  first,  at  Bristol,  [1739,]  resolved  to  visit  and 
preach  to  the  \vild  colliers  in  the  wood,  who  had  seldom 
attended  any  worship  ;  and  his  signal  success  among  them 
encouraged  his  persevering  efibrts.  On  his  return  to  Lon- 
don, he  used  the  same  means  of  field-preaching  at  Kenning- 
ton  Common  and  Moorfields,  being  now  generally  excluded 
from  the  churches,  to  which  he  had  himself  somewhat 
contributed,  by  perhaps  too  severe  animadversions  on  the 
clerg)-,  as  we'll  as  the  env}-  and  disgust  that  his  singular 
popularity  had  occasioned. 

"  Xor  were  ]Mr.  John  Wesley  and  his  brother  Charles 
less  zealously  employed,  but  also  took  the  field  and 
preached  ever\'where.  The  congregations  under  the 
canopy  of  heaven  were  prodigious  :  sometimes,  indeed, 
riotous  and  insulting,  but  in  general  solemn  and  attentive. 
By  these  labours  multitudes  were  daily  added  to  the 
church  of  such  as  should  be  saved."  Then,  after  giving 
an  account  of  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Calvinis- 
tic  and  Wesleyan  Methodists,  he  adds,  "  It  is  observable, 
that  all  these  great  bodies,  though  driven  to  worship  in 
places  of  their  own  erection,  in  order  to  secure  the  preach- 
ing of  such  evangelical  principles  as  they  cannot  find  in 
the  churches  in  general,  would  be  happy  to  have  the  cause 
removed  that  hath  compelled  them  to  these  expedients : 
and  were  the  bishops  and  clerg}^  zealous  to  inculcate  the 
great  fundamentals  of  gospel  truth,  and  to  adorn  the  doc- 
trine by  a  life  of  spiritual  religion,  the  greater  part  of  these 
partial  seceders  would  probably  return  to  the  fonns  and 
worship  of  the  Established  Church.  As  it  is,  their  num- 
bers every  day  increase  ;  and  while  carelessness  and  luke- 
warmness  cause  the  noblest  edifices  to  be  deserted,  every 


280        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

little  meeting  is  crowded  with  hearers,  whenever  a  minis- 
ter, earnest  and  evangelical,  labours  from  his  heart  for  the 
salvation  of  men's  souls. 

"  Such  has  been  the  progress  of  what  is  called  Method- 
ism in  the  greater  bodies  that  more  immediately  bear  that 
name  :  but  it  has  spread  in  a  prodigious  manner,  both 
among  those  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  the  dissenters  from 
it,  and  has  heen  the  means  of  rekindling  the  zeal  of  very 
many,  so  as  to  produce  a  vast  alteration  for  the  better  in 
the  conduct  of  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands.  Predi- 
lection for  the  Establishment  strongly  attaches  many  to  it, 
who  have  received  their  religious  impressions  from  one  or 
other  of  these  Methodist  societies,  or  from  some  of  their  own 
clergy,  who  lie  under  the  imputation  of  being  methodisti- 
cally  inclined,  that  is,  such  as  literally  and  with  apparent 
zeal  inculcate  the  doctrinal  articles  they  have  subscribed, 
and  live  in  a  state  of  greater  piety  and  separation  from  the 
world,  than  the  generality  of  their  brethren.  The  number 
of  these  is  of  late  amazingly  increased.  Where  before 
scarcely  a  man  of  this  stamp  could  be  found,  some  hun- 
dreds, as  rectors  or  curates  in  the  Established  Church,  in- 
culcate the  doctrines  which  are  branded  with  Methodism : 
and  everywhere,  throughout  the  kingom,  one  or  more,  and 
sometimes  several,  are  to  be  found  within  the  compass  of 
a  few  miles,  who  approve  themselves  faithful  labourers 
in  the  Lord's  vineyard.  They  naturally  associate  among 
themselves,  and  separate  from  the  corruption  which  is  in 
the  world.  Everywhere  they  carry  the  stamp  of  peculi- 
arity, and  are  marked  by  their  brethren.  Though  care- 
fully conforming  to  established  rules,  and  strictly  regu- 
lar, they  are  everywhere  objects  of  reproach,  because 
their  conduct  cannot  but  reflect  on  those  who  choose  not 
to  follow  such  examples.  They  pay  conscientious  atten- 
tion to  the  souls  of  their  parishioners  ;  converse  with  them 
on  spiritual  subjects  wherever  they  visit ;  encourage  prayer 
and  praise  in  the  several  families  under  their  care  ;  often 
meet  them  for  these  purposes ;  and  engage  them  to  meet 
and  edify  one  another.  Their  exemplary  conversation  pro- 
cures them  reverence  from  the  poor  of  the  flock,  as  their 
faithful  rebukes  often  bring  upon  them  the  displeasure  of 
the  worldling,  the  dissipated,  and  the  careless.  They  join 
in  none  of  the  fashionable  amusements  of  the  age,  fre- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        281 

quent  not  the  theatres  or  scenes  of  dissipation,  court  no 
favour  of  the  great,  or  human  respects  ;  their  time  and 
services  are  better  employed  in  the  more  important  labours 
of  the  ministry,  preaching  the  word  in  season,  out  of  sea- 
son, and  counting  their  work  their  best  wages.  They 
labour,  indeed,  under  many  discouragements.  All  the 
superior  orders  of  the  clergy  shun  their  society.  They 
have  been  often  treated  by  their  diocesans  with  much  in- 
solence and  oppression.  They  can  number  no  bishop,  nor 
scarcely  a  dignitary  among  them.  Yet  their  number, 
strength,  and  respectability,  continue  increasing.  May 
they  grow  into  a  host,  like  the  host  of  God !" 

The  whole  view  of  these  facts  goes  to  show,  to  demon- 
strate, that  God  never  confined  his  church  to  personal  suc- 
cessions and  episcopal  consecrations ;  but  the  very  re- 
verse. The  chief  persons  in  this  pretended  succession 
have  been  the  principal  corrupters  and  opposers  of  the 
truth.  Whenever  gospel  truth  has  been  preserved  against 
error,  and  a  real  revival  of  apostolic  faith  and  gospel 
holiness  has  been  brought  about,  God  has  employed  men 
NOT  in  this  scheme  of  succession.  The  gospel  would 
HAVE  perished  IF  LEFT  TO  THIS  SUCCESSION.  Man  Cor- 
rupts every  thing.  He  is  not  to  be  trusted  with  so  precious 
a  treasure  as  Christianity.  God  keeps  his  own  work  in 
his  own  hands.  He  and  he  only  holds  the  keys  to  the 
ministry  of  his  word.  He  lets  no  wolves,  no  wicked  men, 
into  his  fold.  When  a  regular  ministry  is  Scriptural  ^nd 
pious,  God  greatly  blesses  it :  it  is  an  unspeakable  bless- 
ing to  the  church.  But  when  ministers  forsake  God,  God 
forsakes  them.  He  then  raises  up  others  ;  he  sets  his  own 
seal  to  their  piety,  doctrine,  labours,  and  sufferings,  by 
making  them  abundantly  successful  in  the  conversion  of 
sinners,  and  in  the  edification  and  extension  of  his  church. 
The  residue  of  the  Spirit  is  with  him.  The  hearts  of  all 
men  are  in  his  keeping.  He  can  raise  up  and  qualify  in- 
struments for  his  work  from  any  quarter.  The  fishermen 
of  Galilee — the  poor  men  of  Lyons — the  Huguenots  in 
France — the  Lollards  in  England — Luther,  the  monk,  in 
Germany— the  Wesleys  at  Oxford — these,  these  have  been 
God's  instruments  !  Well !  let  all  human  schemes  perish 
in  their  turn,  when  abused  to  prevent  the  progress  of  gos- 
pel truth  and  holiness.     The  Lord  liveth!  blessed  be  his 


282       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

holy  name  !  Blessed  be  his  name  for  his  servants,  for  his 
martyrs,  his  confessors,  his  holy  ministers  of  every  name  : 
above  all,  blessed  be  his  holy  name,  for  the  unspeakable 
gift  of  his  holy  truth  transmitted  by  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, and  a  holy  ministry  from  generation  to  generation! 
May  it  more  than  ever  prevail !  and  may  the  earth  be  fill- 
ed with  his  glory !     Amen  !  Amen ! 

The  only  true  succession  essential  to  the  existence  of 
a  Christian  church,  then,  is  the  succession  of  faith,  of 
truth  of  doctrine,  and  holiness  of  life.  We  shall  insert 
some  noble  testimonies  on  this  point,  and  then  conclude 
the  subject. 

Ir.EN^us : — "  In  the  very  book  in  which  he  employs 
the  argument  of  succession,  he  says  he  brings  his  '  demon- 
strations,^ not  from  persons,  but  '  from  the  Scriptures ;' — ■ 
which  Scriptures  are  henceforward  to  be  the  foundation 
mid  pillar  of  our  faith.  In  book  iv,  c.  43-45,  he  says,  we 
are  '  to  obey  those  presbyters  who  have  the  divine  gift  of 
the  faith ;'  that  we  are  '  to  forsake^  all  wicked  ministers  ; 
and  are  to  learn  from  such  as  have  this  divine  gift  of  the 
truth:' 

Tertullian  : — "But  if  the  heretics  feign  or  fabricate 
such  a  [personal]  succession,  this  will  not  help  them.  For 
their  doctrine  itself  compared  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles,  will,  by  its  own  diversity  and  contrariety,  pro- 
nounce against  them.  To  this  form  of  trial  will  appeal  be 
madg  by  those  churches  henceforward  daily  establishing, 
•which,  though  they  have  neither  any  of  the  apostles,  nor 
apostolical  men  for  their  founders,  yet  all  agreeing  in  the 
SAME  faith,  are,  from  this  consanguinity  of  doctrine,  to  be 
esteemed  not  the  less  apostolical  than  the  former."* 

Cyprian  : — Referring  to  Stephen,  bishop  of  Rome, 
pleading  tradition  for  what  Cyprian  believed  to  be  a  great 
error,  answers,  "  What  does  he  mean  by  tradition  ?  Does 
he  mean  the  authority  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  and  of  the 
apostles  in  their  Epistles  ? — let  this  tradition  be  sacred : 
for  if  we  return  to  this  Head  and  Original  of  divine  tradi- 
tion, human  error  will  cease.  If  the  channel  of  the  water 
of  life,  at  first  coming  down  in  large  and  copious  flow, 
should  suddenly  fail,  should  we  not  return  to  the  Fountain  ? 
— If  the  channel  becomes  corrupted  and  leaky,  so  that  the 
*  De  Praescript,  c.  33. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        283 

water  does  not  flow  constantly  and  regularly,  it  must  be 
repaired  in  order  to  the  supply  of  water  to  the  citizens 
coming  down  from  the  Fountain.  This  ought  the  ministers 
of  God  now  to  do,  observing  as  their  rule  the  divine  pre- 
cepts, that  if  any  thing  has  tottered  and  shaken  from  the 
truth,  it  should  be  restored  to  the  authority  of  Christ,  the 
evangelists,  and  the  apostles  ;  and  all  oiu-  proceedings  are 
to  take  their  rise  there,  whence  all  order  and  divine 
authority  rise — for  custom  without  truth  is  only 
ANTIQUATED  ERROR.  Therefore,  forsaking  error,  let  us 
follow  the  truth,  knowing  that,  as  in  Esdras's  opinion, 
truth  is  victorious,  so  it  is  written,  'truth  remains  and 
prevails  for  ever,'  it  lives  and  reigns  through  endless  ages. 
Neither  is  there  with  truth  any  distinction  or  respect  of 
persons,  but  only  that  which  is  just  it  ratifies ;  neither  is 
there  in  the  jurisdiction  of  truth  any  iniquity ;  but  the 
strength,  and  dominion,  and  the  majesty  and  power  of  all 
generations.  Blessed  be  the  God  of  truth!  This  truth 
Christ  shows  in  the  gospel,  saying,  '  I  am  the  truth/ 
Therefore,  if  we  be  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  us  ;  if  we 
remain  in  the  truth,  and  the  truth  abide  in  us,  let  us  hold 
those  things  which  are  of  the  truth."* 

Gregory  Nazienzen  : — In  his  Oration  in  praise  of 
Athanasius,  speaking  of  his  election  as  bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria to  the  chair  of  St.  Mark  the  evangelist,  who  is  sup- 
posed to  have  founded  that  church,  says  that  Athanasius 
was  "  not  less  the  successor  of  St.  Mark's  piety,  than  he 
was  of  his  pre-eminence.  For  if,"  says  he,  "  you  consider 
Athanasius  only  as  one  in  the  number  of  bishops  of  Alex- 
andria, he  was  the  most  remote  from  St.  Mark  :  but  if  you 
regard  his  piety,  you  find  him  the  very  next  to  him.  This 
succession  of  piety  ought  to  be  esteemed  the  true  succes- 
sion. For  he  who  maintains  the  same  doctrine  oi  faith,  is 
partner  in  the  same  chair ;  but  he  who  defends  a  contrary 
doctrine,  ought,  though  in  the  chair  of  St.  Mark,  to  be 
esteemed  an  adversary  to  it.  This  man,  indeed,  may  have 
a  nominal  succession,  but  the  other  has  the  very  thing 
icself  the  succession  in  deed  and  in  truth.  Neither 
is  he  who  usurps  the  chair  by  violent  means  to  be  esteemed 
in  the  succession  ;  but  he  who  is  pressed  into  the  office : 
not  he  who  violates  all  law  in  his  election,  but  he  who  is 
*  Epist.  74,  edit.  Parael.,  1589. 


284       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

elected  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  case  : 
not  he  who  holds  doctrines  opposed  to  what  St.  Mark  taught, 
but  he  who  is  endued  with  the  same  faith  as  St.  Mark. 
Except,  indeed,  you  intend  to  maintain  such  a  succession 
as  that  of  sickness  succeeding  to  health ;  light  succeeding 
to  darkness ;  a  storm  to  a  calm ;  and  madness  succeeding 
to  soundness  of  mind !  It  was  not  with  Athanasius  as  it  is 
sometimes  with  tyrants,  who,  being  suddenly  raised  to  the 
throne,  break  out  into  acts  of  violence  and  excess  :  such 
conduct  as  this  is  the  mark  of  adulterate  and  spurious 
bishops,  and  who  are  unworthy  of  the  dignity  to  which 
they  are  raised.  These  having  no  previous  qualifications 
for  their  office,  never  having  borne  the  trials  of  virtue, 
commence  disciples  and  masters  at  the  same  time,  and 
attempt  to  consecrate  others  while  unholy  themselves.  Yes- 
terday they  were  guilty  of  sacrilege — to-day  they  are  made 
ministers  of  the  sanctuary ;  yesterday  they  were  ungodly 
— to-day  they  are  made  reverend  fathers  in  God :  old  in 
sin,  ignorant  of  piety,  and  having  proceeded  by  violence 
in  all  the  rest,  (as  not  being  influenced  by  divine  but  human 
motives,)  they  crown  the  whole  by  exercising  their  ty- 
ranny UPON  PIETY  itself."* 

St.  Ambrose  : — "  They  have  not  the  inheritance,  are 
not  the  successors  of  Peter,  who  have  not  Peter's  faith."t 

Calvin  : — "  We  have  pretty  opponents  to  deal  with, 
who,  when  they  are  clearly  convicted  of  corrupting  the 
doctrines  and  worship  of  Christianity,  then  take  shelter 
under  the  pretence  that  no  molestation  ought  to  be  offered 
to  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  Now,  this  question  of 
being  successors  of  the  apostles  must  be  decided  by  an 
examination  of  the  doctrines  maintained.  To  this  exa- 
mination, confident  of  the  goodness  of  our  cause,  we  cheer- 
fully appeal.  Let  them  not  reply,  that  they  have  a  right  to 
assume  that  their  doctrine  is  apostolic  ;  for  this  is  begging 
the  question.  What !  shall  they,  who  have  all  things  con- 
trary to  the  apostles,  prove  they  are  their  true  successors, 
solely  by  the  continuance  of  time  ?  As  well  might  a  mur- 
derer, having  slain  the  master  of  the  house  and  taken  pos- 
session of  the  same,  maintain  that  he  was  the  lawful  heir. 
The  popedom,  indeed,  differs  more  from  that  government 

*  Athanasii  0pp.,  vol.  ii,  Appendix,  edit.  Paris,  1627. 
t  De  Poenitentia,  lib.  i,  cap.  6. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION-       285 

whicli  the  apostles  established,  than  the  most  cruel  and 
bloody  tyranny  ever  differed  from  the  best  constituted 
government  for  the  establishment  of  civil  liberty.  Who 
would  tolerate  the  tyrant,  that,  having  murdered  the  right- 
ful sovereign,  only  gloried  in  the  usurpation  of  his  name  ? 
No  less  is  their  impudence,  who,  having  ruined  that  go- 
vernment which  Christ  commanded  and  the  apostles  estab- 
lished, make  a  pretence  of  succession  for  the  support  of 
their  tyranny.  For,  suppose  that  such  an  unbroken  line, 
as  they  pretend,  really  existed,  yet  if  their  apostleship  had 
perished,  (and  it  necessarily  did  by  their  corruption  of 
God's  worship,  by  their  destruction  of  the  offices  of  Christ, 
by  the  extinction  of  the  light  of  doctrine  among  them,  and 
the  pollution  of  the  sacrament,)  what  then  becomes  of  their 
succession?  Except,  indeed,  as  an  heir  succeeds  to  the 
dead,  so  they,  true  piety  being  extinct  among  them,  suc- 
ceed to  domination.  But  seeing  they  have  changed  en- 
tirely the  government  of  the  church,  the  chasm,  between 
them  and  the  apostles  is  so  vast  as  to  exclude  any  com- 
munication of  right  from  the  one  to  the  other.  And  to 
conclude  the  point  in  one  word,  /  deny  the  succession 
scheme,  as  a  thing  utterly  without  foundation y* 

Melancthon  : — "  The  church  is  not  hound  to  an  ordi- 
nary SUCCESSION,  as  they  call  it,  of  bishops,  hut  to  the 
GOSPEL.  When  hishops  do  not  teach  the  truth,  an  ordi- 
nary SUCCESSION  avails  nothing  to  the  church  ;  they  ought 
of  necessity  to  be  forsaken."! 

Peter  Martyr  : — "  It  is  a  most  trifling  thing  which 
they"  [the  Papists]  "  object  against  us,"  [the  reformers,] 
"  that  we  want  the  right  succession.  It  is  quite  enough 
for  us  that  we  have  succeeded  to  the  faith  which  the 
apostles  taught,  and  which  was  maintained  by  the  holy 
fathers  in  the  best  ages  of  the  church. "j: 

Zanchius  : — "  For  we  know  that,  as,  on  the  one  hand, 
where  true  doctrine  alone,  without  a  continued  succession 
of  bishops  from  the  beginning,  can  be  shown  to  exist, 
there  is  a  true  church,  and  a  true  and  legitimate  ministry  ; 
so,  on  the  other  hand,  where  personal  succession  alone  is 
boasted  of  the  purity  of  true  Christian  doctrine  having  de- 

*  Calvini  Vera  Eccles.  Ref.  Ratio. 

+  Loci  Com.  de  Signis  monst.  Eccles.,  ed.  Erlang.,  1838. 

X  Loci  Com.,  class,  iv,  cap.  L 


286      ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

parted,  there  is  no  legitimate  ministry ;  seeing  that  both 
the  church,  and  the  ministry  of  the  church,  are  hound  not 
to  persons^  but  to  the  loord  of  God."* 

Bradford  the  martyr  : — The  Popish  archdeacon, 
Harpsfield,  is  examining  him.  ^^  Harpsfield :  It  (the 
Romish  church)  hath  also  succession  of  bishops.  And  here 
he  made  much  ado  to  prove  that  this  was  an  essential 
point.  Bradford :  You  say  as  you  would  have  it ;  for  if 
this  point  fail  you,  all  the  church  that  you  go  about  to  set 
up  will  fall  down.  You  will  not  find  in  all  the 
Scripture  this  your  essential  point  of  the  succes- 
sion OF  BISHOPS.  In  Christ's  church  antichrist  will  sit. — 
The  ministry  of  God's  word  and  ministers  be  an  essential 
point.  But  to  translate  this  to  the  bishops  and  their  suc- 
cession, is  a  plain  subtilty.  And  therefore  that  it  may  be 
plain,  I  will  ask  you  a  question, — Tell  me,  whether  that 
the  Scripture  knew  a7iy  difference  between  bishops  and 
ministers,  which  ye  call  priests,  [presbyters  ?]  Harpsfield  : 
No.  Bradford :  Well,  then  go  on  forward  and  let  us  see 
what  ye  will  get  now  by  the  succession  of  bishops  ;  that 
is,  of  ministers,  which  can  be  understood  of  such  bishops 
as  minister  not,  but  lord  it.  Harpsfield :  I  perceive  that 
ye  are  far  out  of  the  way.  Bradford :  If  Christ  or  his 
apostles  being  here  on  earth  had  been  required  by  the 
prelates  of  the  church  then,  to  have  made  a  demonstration 
of  that  church  by  succession  of  such  high  priests  as  had 
approved  the  doctrines  which  he  taught,  I  think  that  Christ 
would  have  done  as  I  do,  that  is,  [he  would]  have  alleged 
that  which  upholdeth  the  church,  even  the  verity,  the 
WORD  OF  God  taught  and  believed,  not  by  the  high  priests 
which  of  long  time  had  persecuted  it,  but  by  the  prophets 
and  other  good  simple  men,  which  perchance  were  counted 
for  heretics  of  the  church,  which  church  was  not  tied  to 
succession,  but  to  the  word  of  God.^^j 

Bishop  Jewel  : — "  The  grace  of  God  is  promised  to 
pious  souls,  and  to  those  who  fear  God  ;  and  is  not  affixed 
to  bishops^  chairs,  and  [personal]  succession." — iVpology. 
"  For  that  ye  tell  so  many  fair  tales  about  Peter's  succes- 
sion, we  demand  of  you  wherein  the  pope  succeedeth 
Peter  ?     You  answer,  he  succeeded  him  in  his  chair  ;  as 

*  Zanchii  (confessio)  Fidei,  cap.  25,  sec.  19. 

i  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  vol.  3,  p.  293,  &c.,  fol.  ed.  164L 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        287 

if  Peter  had  been  some  time  installed  in  Rome,  and  had 
solemnly  sat  all  day  with  his  triple  crown,  in  his  pontiji- 
calibus^  and  in  a  chair  of  gold.  And  thus,  having  lost  both 
RELIGION  and  DOCTRINE,  yc  think  it  sufficient,  at  last,  to 
hold  by  the  chair,  as  if  a  soldier  that  had  lost  his  sword, 
would  play  the  man  with  his  scabbard.  But  so  Caiaphas 
succeeded  Aaron  ;  so  wicked  Manasses  succeeded  David  ; 
so  may  antichrist  easily  sit  in  Peter's  chair."* 

Whitaker  ; — After  briefly  noticing  Bellarmine's  refer- 
ence to  the  fathers,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  &c.,  he  replies, 
"  In  the  first  place,  I  answer  in  general,  that  I  might 
justly  reject  all  these  human  testimonies,  and  require  some 
clear  testimony  out  of  the  Scriptures.  For  this  is  the  con- 
stant determination  of  all  the  catholic  fathers,  that  nothing 
is  to  be  received  or  approved  in  religion  which  does  not 
rest  on  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  which  cannot  be 
proved  and  established  by  the  Scriptures.  But  the  fathers 
did  not  use  this  argument  of  personal  succession  as  a  firm 
and  solid  argument  of  itself,  but  as  a  kind  of  illustration  of 
their  main  argument :  they  did  not  employ  it  to  win  the 
battle,  but  by  way  of  triumph  after  victory.  For  when 
they  had,  by  solid  and  powerful  arguments  out  of  the 
Scriptures,  conquered  their  enemies,  and  established  their 
cause  ;  then,  by  way  of  triumph,  they  brought  forward  the 
succession  of  bishops  in  this  manner :  the  bishops  hold 
this  faith  as  they  received  it  from  the  apostles  ;  therefore 
this  is  the  catholic  faith.  This  agument  proves  not  that 
the  succession  of  persons  alone  is  conclusive,  or  sufficient 
of  itself;  but  only  that  it  avails  when  they  had  first  proved 
(from  the  Scriptures)  that  the  faith  they  preached  was  the 
same  faith  which  the  apostles  had  preached  before  them. 
Faith,  therefore,  is  as  it  were,  the  soul  of  the  iSuccession  ; 
which  faith  being  wanting,  the  r^ked  succession  of  persons 
is  like  a  dead  carcase  loithout  the  soul.^f 

Field  : — "  Thus  still  we  see  that  truth  of  doctrine  is  a 
necessary  note  whereby  the  church  must  be  known  and 
discerned,  and  not  ministry  or  succession,  or  any  thing 
else,  without  it."J 

White  : — The    Jesuit   objects   that   "  The    Protestant 

*  Defence  of  Apology,  p.  634,  ed.  1609. 

+  Whitakeri  0pp.  vol.  i,  p.  506,  fol.  ed.  Genev.  1610. 

t  Field  on  the  Church,  book  ii,  chap.  vi. 


288       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

church  is  not  apostolic,  because  they  cannot  derive  their 
pedigree  lineally  without  interruption  from  the  apostles,  as 
the  Roman  church  can  from  St.  Peter,  but  are  enforced  to 
acknowledge  some  other,  as  Calvin,  or  Luther,  or  some 
such,"  &LC.  Query — have  not  Dr.  Hook,  Mr.  Palmer, 
&;c.,  stolen  their  objections  to  the  churches  of  the  Re- 
formation from  the  Jesuits'  school  ?  White  says,  "  Our 
answer  is,  that  the  succession  required  to  make  a  church 
apostolike,  must  be  defined  by  the  doctrine  and  not  by  the 
place  ox  persons. —  Wheresoever  the  true  faith  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  is  professed  and  embraced^  there  is  the  whole  and 
full  nature  of  an  apostolike  church. — For  the  external 

SUCCESSION  WE  CARE   NOT."* 

Francis  White,  bishop  of  Ely  : — "  The  true  ^asible 
church  is  named  apostolical,  not  because  of  local  and  per- 
sonal succession  of  bishops,  (only  or  principally,)  but 
because  it  retaineth  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  apostles. 
Personal  or  local  succession  only,  and  in  itself,  maketh 
not  the  church  apostolical,  because  hirelings  and  wolves 
may  lineally  succeed  lawful  and  orthodox  pastors :  Acts 
XX,  29,  30.  Even  as  sickness  succeedeth  health,  and  dark- 
ness light,  and  a  tempest  fair  weather,  as  Gregory  Nazianzen 
affirmeth."t 

Stillingfleet  : — "  Come  we,  therefore,  to  Rome  ;  and 
here  the  succession  is  as  muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself.  Then 
let  succession  know  its  place,  and  learn  to  vaile  bonnet  to 
the  Scriptures.  The  succession  so  much  pleaded  by  the 
writers  of  the  primitive  church,  was  not  a  succession  of 
persons  in  apostolical  power,  but  a  succession  in  apostoli- 
cal DOCTRINE. "J 

Bishop  Hall  : — "  First,  we  may  not  either  have  or 
expect  now  in  the  church,  that  ministry  which  Christ  set : 
where  are  our  apostles,  prgphets,  evangelists  ?  If  we  must 
always  look  for  the  very  same  administration  of  the  church 
which  our  Saviour  left,  why  do  we  not  acknowledge  these 
extraordinary  functions  ?  Do  we  not  rather  think,  since  it 
pleased  him  to  begin  with  those  offices  which  should  not 
continue,  that  herein  he  purposely  intended  to  teach  us, 
that  if  we  have  the  samejieavenly  business  done,  we  should 

*  White's  Way  to  the  True  Church,  sec.  52,  ed.  1612. 

t  Bishop  White's  Works,  p.  64,  fol.  ed.  1624. 

t  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  pp.  297,  303,  322,  edit.  1662 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       289 

not  be  curious  in  the  circumstances  of  the  persons  ?  But 
for  those  ordinary  callings  of  pastors  and  doctors,  (intended 
to  perpetuitie)  with  what  forehead  can  he  deny  them  to  be 
in  our  church?  How  many  have  we  that  conscionably 
teach  and  feed,  or  rather  feed  by  teaching?  Call  them 
what  you  please.  Superintendents,  (that  is,)  bishops,  pre- 
lates, priests,  lecturers,  parsons,  vicars,  &c.  If  they 
PREACH  Christ  truly,  upon  true  inward  abilities,  upon  a 
sufficient  [if  not  perfect]  outward  vocation :  such  a  one 
\all  histories  witness^  for  the  substance,  as  hath  been  ever 
in  the  church  since  the  apostles'  times,  they  are  pastors 
and  doctors  allowed  by  Christ.  We  stand  not  upon  circum- 
stances and  appendances  of  the  fashions  of  ordination^ 
manner  of  choice,  attire,  titles,  maintenance  :  hut  if  for 
substance  these  be  not  true  pastors  and  doctors,  Christ  had 
NEVER  any  in  his  church  since  the  apostles  left  the  earths* 
Again,  speaking  of  the  reformed  churches  and  their 
government  and  ministers,  Calvin,  Beza,  &c.,  and  of  the 
Church  of  England,  he  says  to  his  opponent,  "  Why,  like 
a  true  make-bate,  do  you  not  say,  that  our  churches  have 
so  renounced  their  government.  These  sisters" — the 
Church  of  England  and  the  reformed  churches — "  have 
learned  to  differ,  and  yet  to  love  and  reverence  each  other : 
and  in  these  cases  to  enjoy  their  own  forms  without  pre- 
scription of  necessity  or  censure."! 

The  Rev.  J.  Wesley  ; — "  I  deny  that  the  Romish  bish- 
ops came  down  by  uninterrupted  succession  from  the 
apostles.  I  never  could  see  it  proved  ;  and  I  am  persuaded 
I  never  shall.  But  unless  this  is  proved,  your  own  pas- 
tors, on  your  principles,  are  no  pastors  at  all."J  "The 
figment  of  the  uninterrupted  succession,  he  openly  said 
'  he  knew  to  be  a  fabled  "^ 

Here  is  a  glorious  army  of  martyrs  and  confessors, 
venerable  fathers  and  reformers,  bearing  testimony  to 
the  only  essential  succession,  the  succession  of  apostolical 
doctrine ! 

Truth  and  holiness,  then,  are  the  only  infallible,  essen- 
tial properties  or  signs  of  the  church  of  God ;  and  the 
Scriptures   are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  this  truth  and 

*  Bishop  Hall's  Apology  against  Brownists,  sec.  27.    t  Ibid.  sec.  3L 

t  Wesley's  Works,  vol.  3,  p.  44,  ed.  1829. 

^  Watson's  Life  of  Wesley,  p.  286,  12mo.  1831. 

13 


290        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

holiness.  God  gives  ministers  to  his  church,  as  the  means 
of  leading  men  to  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  this  truth, 
and  to  live  accordingly ;  but  every  man  is  required,  at  the 
peril  of  his  soul,  to  believe,  not  in  man,  but  in  God  ;  not  in 
ministers,  but  in  the  Scriptures.  So  saith  St.  Augustine  : 
"  Nimquam  aliquis  apostolorum  dicer e  auderet,  qui  credit  in 
me.  Credimus  apostolo,  sed  non  credimus  in  apostolum. — 
No  apostle  ever  dared  to  say  '  He  w^ho  believes  in  me.' 
We  believe  an  apostle,  but  we  do  not  believe  in  an 
apostle."* 

It  follows,  as  a  consequence,  that  as  every  man  is  to 
believe  for  himself,  every  man  is  to  judge  for  himself.  The 
Papists  say  that  God  has  made  the  church  the  infallible 
guide  in  matters  of  faith.  God  never  said  so.  Let  no 
man  deceive  himself.  But  the  position  is  a  sophism  from 
beginning  to  end:  it  takes  for  granted  what  ought  to  be 
proved.  It  takes  for  granted  that  ministers,  bishops,  and 
priests,  are  the  church.  This  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures. 
When  our  Lord  said  to  Peter,  "  On  this  rock  will  I  build 
my  church,^''  the  Papists  say,  that  he  meant  he  would  build 
his  church  upon  Peter  and  his  successors  ;  that  is,  upon 
the  bishops  of  Rome,  and  the  other  bishops  and  priests 
under  them.  Build  what,  upon  Peter  and  his  successors  ? 
Why,  if  bishops  and  priests  are  the  church,  that  he  would 
build  bishops  and  priests  upon  bishops  and  priests  !  Peter 
upon  Peter  !  that  he  would  build  a  thing  upon  itself !  This 
is  hardly  equalled  by  the  poor  South  Sea  islanders,  build- 
i7ig  the  world  upon  a  turtle^  and  the  turtle  upon  nothing ! 
Our  Lord's  meaning  was,  that  his  church,  his  faithful  peo- 
ple, should  be  founded  upon  the  truth  of  his  being  the 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  When  the  apostle 
addresses  the  presbyters  or  bishops  of  Ephesus — "  Take 
heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed 
the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood,"  Acts  XX,  28,  he  clearly  makes  the  "  church  of  God" 
to  mean  "  the  fock"  as  distinguished  from  the  shepherds ; 
that  is,  the  people  as  distinguished  from  the  ministers. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  ministers  are  a  part  of  the  church 
generally  ;  but  to  say  that  they  are  the  church,  and  upon 

*  Augustini  0pp.  v,  9,  Tract  54,  in  Evang.  Joan.  p.  133,  ed,  Ludg. 
1664. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.      •  291 

this  partial  statement  to  found  a  most  awfully  important 
claim,  the  claim  of  infallibility  and  lordship  over  the  faith 
of  all  the  people  of  God,  is  a  daring,  false,  and  impious 
position  ! — Such  is  the  foundation  of  popery.  But 
they  say,  the  right  o{  private  judgment  runs  into  sects  and 
heresies,  and  they  make  a  mighty  parade  about  this.  Per- 
haps many  of  them  do  not  understand  what  they  say. 
This  is  their  best  excuse.  If  they  mean  to  say  that  the 
Protestant  churches  have,  as  to  the  succession  of  faith,  as 
taught  by  the  apostles,  gone  into  sects  and  heresies,  let 
them  show  a  single  true  Protestant  society  that  does  not 
hold  and  teach  what  the  apostles  held  and  taught.  As 
they  boast  of  the  fathers,  letlhem  produce  a  single  creed 
from  any  of  the  fathers,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years, 
that  is  not  believed  by  every  true  Protestant  church.  Now 
if  they  cannot  do  this,  where  is  the  honesty  of  talking 
about  sects  and  heresies  arising  from  private  judgment? 
But  we  turn  the  tables  upon  the  Papists  :  they  have  added 
many  articles  to  the  creed  which  the  apostles  never 
taught :  4hey  have  corrupted  the  truth  of  God  and  pervert- 
ed the  gospel.  They  have  brought  heresies  and  idolatry 
into  the  church  by  wholesale.  No  Popish  priest  under 
heaven  can  prove  the  Popish  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  (the 
universal  creed  of  the  Popish  Church)  from  the  Scriptures, 
nor  from  the  fathers  of  the  first  three  hundred  years. 
They  have  lost  the  succession  of  faith.  That  church  is  in 
a  state  oi  heresy  and  idolatry  :  it  is  an  apostate  church  ! 
The  priesthood  of  Papists  and  high  Churchmen  may  be 
an  imitation  of  Judaism  or  Paganism,  or  it  may  be  a  com- 
pound of  both  ;  but  it  is  not,  as  a  priesthood,  the  Christian 
ministry  ;  and  no  man  in  it  is  a  gospel  minister  at  all,  any 
further  than  he  is  such  according  to  the  above  principles 
of  Protestantism.  The  priesthood  of  Papists  and  high 
Churchmen  professedly  and  essentially  depends  upon  an 
uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops,  to  be  traced  in  an 
unbroken  series  from  Peter  to  the  present  day ;  and  upon 
the  authority  of  episcopal  consecrations,  or  ordinations  as 
episcopal.  Now  no  such  uninterrupted  succession  exists. 
Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination,  as  such,  that  is,  as 
distinct  from  the  power  of  their  order  as  presbyters,  is  a 
mere  ceremony;  it  has  no  scriptural  validity  whatever. 
Both  Popery  and  high  Churchism  erect  in  the  priesthood  a 


V^'il*' 


292       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

system  of  spiritual  tyranny  over  the  whole  church  of  God, 
The  succession  here  is,  as  Gregory  Nazianzen  describes 
it,  "  the  succession  of  sickness  to  health  ;  light  succeed- 
ing to  darkness  ;  a  storm  to  a  calm  ;  and  spiritual  derange- 
ment to  the  spirit  of  health,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound 
mind."  Or,  as  Bishop  Jewel  states  it,  "  it  is  like  Caiaphas 
succeeding  to  Aaron  ;  Manasses  succeeding  to  David  ;  or 
antichrist  sitting  in  Peter's  chair."  ^'^*. 

The  Protestant  churches  are  one  in  their  rule  of  faith, 
Chillingworth's  immortal  words  shaM  be  here  inserted : 
"  Know  then,  sir,  that  when  I  say  the  religion  of  Protest- 
ants is  in  prudence  to  be  preferred  before  yours,  as,  on  the 
one  side,  I  do  not  understand  oy  your  religion  the  doctrine  of 
Bellarmine,  or  Baronius,  or  any  other  private  man  among 
you,  nor  the  doctrine  of  the  Sorbon,  or  of  the  Jesuits,  or  of 
the  Dominicans,  or  of  any  other  particular  company 
among  you,  but  that  wherein  you  all  agree,  or  profess  to 
agree,  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent  :  so  accord- 
ingly, on  the  other  side,  by  the  religion  of  Protestants,  I 
do  not  understand  the  doctrine  of  Luther,  or  Calvin,  or 
Melancthon  ;  nor  the  confession  of  Augusta,  or  Geneva; 
nor  the  Catechism  of  Heidi eberg;  nor  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England ;  no,  nor  the  hannony  of  Protestant 
confessions  ;  but  that  wherein  they  all  agree,  and  which 
they  all  subscribe  with  a  greater  harmony,  as  a  perfect 
rule  of  their  faith  and  actions,  that  is,  the  Bible.  The- 
Bible,  I  say,  the  Bible  only  is  the  religion  of  Protestants  * 
Whatsoever  else  they  believe  besides  it,  and  the  plain, 
irrefragable,  indubitable  consequences  of  it,  well  may  they 
hold  it  as  a  matter  of  opinion  :  but  as  matter  of  faith  and 
religion,  neither  can  they  with  coherence  to  their  own 
grounds  believe  it  themselves,  nor  require  the  belief  of  it 
of  others,  without  most  high  and  most  schismatical  pre- 
sumption. I,  for  my  part,  after  a  long  and  (as  I  verily  be- 
lieve and  hope)  impartial  search  of  the  true  way  to  eternal 
happiness,  do  profess  plainly,  that  I  cannot  find  any  rest 
for  the  sole  of  my  foot,  but  upon  this  Rock  only.  I  see 
plainly,  and  with  mine  own  eyes,  that  there  are  popes 
against  popes,  councils  against  councils,  some  fathers 
against  others,  the  same  fathers  against  themselves,  a  con- 
sent of  fathers  of  one  age  against  a  consent  of  fathers  of 
another  age,  the  church  of  one  age  against  the  church  of 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        293 

aiiother  age.  Traditive  interpretations  of  Scripture  are 
pretended,  but  there  are  few  or  none  to  be  found  :  no  tra- 
dition but  only  of  Scripture,  can  derive  itself  from  the  foun- 
tain ;  but  may  be  plainly  proved,  either  to  have  been  brought 
in,  in  such  an  age  after  Christ,  or  that  in  such  an  age  it 
was  not  in.  In  a  word,  there  is  no  sufficient  certainty 
but  of  Scripture  only,  for  any  considering  man  to  build 
upon.  This,  therefore,  and  this  only,  I  have  reason  to 
believe :  this  I  will  profess  ;  according  to  this  I  will  live ; 
and  for  this,  if  there  be  occasion,  I  will  not  only  willingly, 
but  even  gladly,  lose  my  life,  though  I  should  be  sorry  that 
Christians  should  take  it  from  me.  Propose  me  any 
thing  out  of  this  book,  and  require  whether  I  believe  it  or 
no,  and  seem  it  never  so  incomprehensible  to  human  rea- 
son, I  will  subscribe  it  with  hand  and  heart,  as  knowing  no 
demonstration  can  be  stronger  than  this, — God  hath  said 
so,  therefore  it  is  true.  In  other  things,  I  will  take  no 
man'sliberty  of  judgment  from  him  ;  neither  shall  any  man 
take  mine  from  me.  I  will  think  no  man  the  worse  man, 
nor  the  worse  Christian  ;  I  will  love  no  man  the  less  for 
differing  in  opinion  from  me.  And  what  measure  I  nfete 
to  others  I  expect  from  them  again.  I  am  fully  assured 
that  God  does  not,  and  therefore  that  men  ought  not,  to 
require  any  more  of  any  man  than  this,  to  believe  the 
Scriptures  to  be  God's  word,  to  endeavour  to  find  the  true 
sense  of  it,  and  to  live  according  to  it,"* 

The  true  Protestant  churches,  then,  have  the  true  suc- 
cession, the  succession  of  the  faith  of  the  apostles,  the  doc- 
trine of  truth  as  taught  by  the  apostles.  This  is  in  the 
Bible,  and  in  the  Bible  alone.  All  held  besides  this,  as 
articles  of  faith,  or  as  divinely  hinding  in  obedience,  is  a 
CORRUPTION  of  Christianity, 

Let  the  Protestant  churches  remember  their  high  privi- 
leges :  let  them  bless  God  for  them,  and  endeavour  to  the 
utmost  to  keep  their  trust  pure   and  undefiled.     Let  the 

PEOPLE     HONOR     THEIR    MINISTERS     AS    AMBASSADORS    FOR 

Christ,  The  great  aim  of  Papists  and  Semi-Papists  is  to 
lead  the  people  to  despise  their  ministers.  Why  do 
they  do  this  ?  Why  1  that  they  may  make  a  prey  of  the 
people.  Do  they  offer  io  feed  them  as  pastors  ? — it  will  be 
with  the  husks  of  tradition.  Do  they  claim  to  govern 
*  The  Religion  of  Protestants,  c.  6,  sec.  56. 


294        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

them  ? — it  will  be  as  lords  over  God's  heritage.  Do  they 
offer  them  liberty  ? — it  is  that  they  may  lead  them  to  hon- 
dage.  God  has  made  the  Protestant  churches  free;  may 
they  stand  fast  in  their  liberty,  and  never  be  entangled 
again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage  ! 

God  has  always  had  a  church,  a  spiritual  people  ;  he 
always  will  have  a  spiritual  people,  a  true  church.  This 
church  is  a  holy  church  :  no  body  of  people,  as  distinguish- 
ed by  human  arrangements,  is  so.  Ungodly  people  are 
found  among  all  denominations  ;  most  particularly  among 
Papists  and  high  Churchmen. 

The  church  of  God  is  a  catholic  church,  consisting  of 
all  the  true  worshippers  of  God  everywhere  :  no  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  ever  was  catholic,  that  is,  universal. 
The  expression,  Roman  Catholic,  is  a  solecism — ^is  non- 
sense— is  absurd !   It  is  as  much  as  to  say,  a  particular 

UNIVERSAL,  that  A  PART  IS  THE  WHOLE,  that  A  CITY  IS 
THE   WORLD  !  ! 

The  true  Catholic  church  is  the  same  in  all  ages^  as 
well  as  in  all  places.  It  is  made  up  of  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  martyrs  and  confessors,  and  true  believers :  "  I 
say  unto  you,  that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matt,  viii,  II.  "After 
this  I  beheld,  and,  lo,  a  great  multitude,  which  no  man 
could  number,  of  all  nations,  and -kindreds,  and  people, 
and  tongues,  stood  before  the  throne,  and  before  the  Lamb, 
clothed  with  white  robes,  and  palms  in  their  hands ;  and 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying.  Salvation  to  our  God 
which  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,"  Rev. 
vii,  9,  10. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       295 


CONCLUSION. 


The  argument  of  this  Essay  is  now  finished ;  and  the 
high  Church  scheme  of  an  order  of  bishops,  hy  divine 
right,  distinct  from  and  superior  to  presbyters  ;  possessing 
prerogatives  incompatible  with  presbyters ;  having  the 
rights  and  authority  of  apostles  ;  which  order  of  bishops 
is  to  be  traced  by  a  personal  succession,  through  an  un- 
broken line  from  Peter  to  the  present  bishops  of  England ; 
and  whose  ordinations  are  so  essential  to  the  validity  of  a 
true  gospel  ministry,  that  without  them  all  preaching  and 
ordinances  are  "  vain,"  and  vnthout  the  ^^ promise  of  Christ ;" 
this  scheme  has  been  examined  in  its  fundamental  posi- 
tions, and  has  been  shown  to  be  a  baseless  fabric,  cal- 
culated only  to  destroy  the  peace  of  the  church,  and  to 
promote  pride,  bigotry,  exclusiveness,  intolerance,  and 
persecution ;  in  one  word,  to  destroy  Protestantism, 
AND  to  promote  Popery.  It  has  been  proved,  on  the 
other  hand,  with  all  the  evidence  of  a  catholic  or  universal 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  church,  that  bishops  and  presby- 
ters are,  by  divine  right,  one  and  the  same.  Presbyters 
have  been  shown  by  the  Scriptures,  the  only  and  sufficient 
authority  in  such  matters,  to  have,  by  divine  right, 
EQUAL  power  and  authority  with  any  bishops  to  perform 
ALL  the  acts  of  the  Christian  ministry ;  instancing,  espe- 
cially, that  of  ORDAINING  ministers.  Presbyters  are  equally 
as  much  successors  of  the  apostles  as  bishops  are.  The 
only  essential  succession  is  the  succession  of  faith.  All 
churches  are  apostolical  or  not,  in  proportion  as  they  ap- 
proach to,  or  recede  from,  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles.  An 
unbroken  line  oi personal  descent  oi  spiritual  power  to  ordain 
in  the  English  bishops,  is  a  fable.  No  man  ever  did,  or 
ever  can  prove  it.  In  addition  to  all  this,  we  have  shown, 
that  when  examined  by  the  Scriptures,  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  reformers,  the  Popish  ordinations  of  the  English 
bishops,  before  and  at  the  Reformation,  were,  from  the 
monstrous  wickedness,  heresy,  and  simony  of  the  persons 
concerned,  null  and  void  to  all  intents   and  purposes. 


296       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

The  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  ministers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  well  as  that  of  the  ministers  of  all 
other  churches,  must  be  judged,  therefore,  according  to  the 
Scriptural  rule  of  the  succession  of  doctrine  ;  the  qiialijica' 
tions  of  the  men  in  personal  piety,  ability  to  teach,  minis- 
terial grace,  the  call  of  God,  and  their  appointment  to  the 
work  in  a  manner  suitable  to  the  Scriptures. 

A  few  brief  observations,  as  corollaries,  may  be  added. 

Ministers  are  God's  gifts,  and  God's  stewards  in  the 
church : — 

The  Scriptures  regularly  speak  in  this  style  : — The 
Lord  sends  the  labourers  into  his  vineyard.  Matt,  ix,  28. 
The  Lord  appoints  ministers  as  the  stewards  of  his  house- 
hold, to  give  them  their  portion  of  meat  in  due  season. 
Matt,  xii,  42.  Jesus,  as  the  chief  Shepherd,  brings  in  by 
himself,  as  the  door,  all  true  shepherds.  When  he  ascended 
up  on  high,  he  gave  to  the  church  pastors,  &lc.  Ephes.  iv, 
11,  12.  They  are  to  rule  by  His  word  and  will.  Their 
office,  we  have  shown,  is  a  limited  office :  they  are  ser- 
vants, not  masters,  nor  lords  over  the  heritage.  None  but 
such  as  these  can  be  true  ministers  of  the  gospel.     God 

QUALIFIES   THEM,  MOVES   THEM,  AND   SENDS   THEM.      Where 

no  church  is  formed,  they  gather  one.  Where  churches 
are  formed,  he  moves  and  directs  his  church,  if  attentive 
to  his  will,  to  receive  all  he  sends. 

Every  minister  of  the  gospel  must  be  a  real  Christian, 
not  a  wicked  man ;  a  man  of  some  natural  ability,  not  a 
fool ;  endowed  with  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  not  a  novice  ; 
able  to  teach  and  to  convince  gainsayers.  Besides  all 
this,  he  must  have  a  special  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the 
work.  Rom.  xii,  6;  1  Cor.  xii,  4-7;  Ephes.  iv,  7,  &c. 
Every  such  man  has  a  divine  commission  in  general  to 
preach  the  gospel :  but  he  has  no  authority  in  any  par- 
ticular church,  as  a  pastor  or  governor  over  that  church. 
To  constitute  him  a  regular  pastor  in  a  particular  church, 
he  must  be  solemnly  received  as  such  by  the  regular  au- 
thority of  that  church.  The  mode  of  constituting  a  minis- 
ter in  a  particular  church  may  vary  according  to  circum- 
stances. If  it  be  in  a  state  of  persecution,  or  reformation, 
the  full  reception  of  his  ministry  establishes  him  as  the 
minister  of  that  church  :  if  it  be  in  a  settled  state,  he  must 
be  constituted  or  instituted  a  minister  according  to  the 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        297 

usages  of  that  church.  Scripture,  and  all  antiquity,  and 
the  generality  of  the  reformed  churches,  show  this  should 
be  done  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbyter}", 
that  is,  of  those  ministers  appointed  for  their  wisdom, 
gravity,  and  experience  to  such  office  in  the  church. 
Only  it  should  be  kept  in  mind,  that  this  form,  though 
authorized  by  such  high  examples,  is  never  commanded. 
It  is  becoming  and  proper,  but  not  essential.  It  is  pretty 
clear  that  the  early  ordinations  were  sometimes  performed 
by  the  lifting  up  of  the  hands  of  those  who  ordained.*  So 
the  word  x^^porovecj^  used  in  the  ordaining  of  elders  or 
presbyters  in  all  the  churches  by  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
properly  means.  Acts  xiv,  23,  Any  act,  indeed,  by  the 
authority  of  the  church,  setting  men  apart  to  this  office,  is 
ordination.  This  public  authorized  act  is  all  that  belongs 
to  the  essence  of  ordination  ;  all  besides  is  accident  or  cir- 
cumstance. All  ministers  are  equal,  by  divine  right, 
in  every  thing  that  belongs  to  the  being  or  well-being  of 
the  church.  The  church  may  arrange  for  one  or  more  to 
perform,  fer  the  sake  of  order,  any  particular  duty,  so  that 
no  attempt  is  made  to  claim  for  such  acts  or  arrangements 
more  than  human  authority.  The  moment  this  is  done, 
such  a  claim  makes  war  on  the  rights  of  other  ministers, 
and  on  the  peace  of  the  church. 

The  efficacy  of  a  gospel  ministry  depends,  a^  to  God, 
upon  the  authority  and  power  of  the  loord  of  God,  and  upon 
the  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and,  as  to  man,  upon 
the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  hearers.     The  mere  preach- 

*  I  am  aware  that  attempts  have  been  made  to  refute  this,  by  saying 
that  the  word  ;^fiporovfw  means  to  institute  a  person  in  some  office. 
Very  true.  So  balloting  or  voting  frequently  does  the  same.  But  this 
is  only  part  of  the  truth.  Expressions  of  this  kind  frequently  declare 
the  manner  of  doing  this,  as  well  as  the  thing  itself;  so  voting  by  a 
show  of  hands  expresses  the  manner,  as  well  as  the  thing.  The  Greeks, 
from  whom  the  word  is  taken,  frequently  instituted  individuals  in  office 
by  a  show  of  hands.  The  text  in  Acts  xiv,  23,  uses  the  very  word  ap- 
plied to  the  institution  of  an  individual  in  office  among  the  Greeks,  by 
a  shoio  of  hands.  Among  them,  therefore,  it  signified  to  ordain  or  ap- 
point to  office  by  a  show  of  hands.  The  sacred  writer  says  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas  thus  instituted,  that  is,  ordained,  presbyters  in  every 
church ;  they  ordained  them,  therefore,  by  lifting  up  their  hands  in 
solemn  attestation  that  they  so  instituted  them  as  ministers  of  the 
word.  Such  seems  to  be  the  legitimate  conclusion  both  from  the 
language,  and  from  the  customs  of  the  Greeks. 
13* 


298        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SLCCESSION. 

ing  and  administering  of  sacraments,  as  the  act  of  the 
MINISTER,  has  in  itself  no  saving  efficacy.  The  opus 
operatum,  or  the  doctrine  of  Papists  and  high  Churchmen, 
that  the  mere  outward  performance  of  the  offices  and  ordi- 
nances of  religion  necessarily  produces  inward  religion, 
is  PRIESTCRAFT,  and  destroys  many  of  the  souls  of  the 
people.  The  blind  lead  the  blind,  and  both  fall  into  the 
ditch.  This  abuse  of  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  is  no 
argument  against  its  use  and  importance.  The  gospel 
ministry  is  God's  ordinance.  It  is  a  highly  important 
ordinance ;  and,  when  properly  performed,  is  highly  use- 
ful. Is  it  not  vastly  important  to  know,  that  God  has  sent 
to  us  ambassadors  of  peace  ;  though  the  authority,  and 
power,  and  efficacy  of  this  embassy  are  really  all  divine  ? 
Is  it  not  highly  useful  to  find,  that,  as  to  those  who  believe 
and  obey  that  embassy,  God  will  receive  them  by  it  into 
pardon  and  peace;  to  holiness  and  heaven?  "  Who  then 
is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  by  whom  ye 
believe,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man  ?  I  have 
planted,  Apollos  watered,  but  God  gave  the  increase. 
So  then  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither  he 
that  watereth  ;  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase,"  1  Cor. 
iii,  5-7. 

The  CHURCH  OF  God  is  the  temple,  the  house  of  God : — 
This  church  is  to  be  considered  as  universal  or  particu- 
lar ;  the  church  universal  includes  all  upon  earth  who  are 
united  to  Christ  by  living  faith ;  and  all  who  are  united  to 
Christ  by  living  faith  belong  to  this  church.  It  includes 
all  particular  churches  that  hold  the  faith  of  Christ. 

Thus  spake  the  English  reformers  in  their  definition  of 
the  holy  catholic  or  universal  church : — "  It  comprehends 
all  assemblies  of  men  over  the  whole  world  that  receive 
the  faith  of  Christ ;  who  ought  to  hold  a  unity  of  love 
and  brotherly  agreement  together,  by  which  they  be- 
come members  of  the  catholic  church."*  A  particular 
church  is  a  church  distinguished  outwardly  by  some  pecu- 
liar views  in  doctrine  or  modes  of  worship,  government,  or 
discipline,  from  other  churches.  Each  particular  church 
has  equal  rights  and  privileges  with  any  other  church. 
None  have  a  right  to  interfere  with  the  just  liberties  of 
other  churches.  Civil  or  national  establishments  may 
*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  book  iii,  anno  1540. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        299 

have  peculiar  emoluments,  but  they  can  have  no  divine 
authority  to  restrain  the  peaceable  exercise  of  spiritual 
duties  in  other  churches.  When  they  do,  they  become 
antichristiax. 

Church  government  : — 

By  this  is  meant  the  system  of  ecclesiastical  arrange- 
ment and  discipline  of  some  particular  church.  This 
church  government  must  be  distinguished  into  what  is 
general,  and  what  is  particular;  the  principle,  and  the 
application  in  detail  of  that  principle.  The  New  Testa- 
ment lays  down  general  principles,  but  gives  no  parti- 
cular F0R3I  of  churcR  government  in  detail.  All  church 
government  is  Scriptural  that  abides  by  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  the  New  Testament,  however  it  may  vary  in 
detail.  All  church  government  is  unscriptural  that  vio- 
lates any  of  the  general  principles  laid  down  in  Scripture, 
no  matter  what  may  be  their  form  in  detail.  The  follow- 
ing are  general  Scriptural  principles  : — 

As  to  the  relations  between  ministers  and  people : — 
ministers  are  to  feed  and  rule  the  people  according  to  the 
word  of  God  :  the  people  are  to  submit  to  such  a  ministry, 
to  honour  and  support  such  ministers.  This  is  clear  from 
the  following  passages  : — ^latt.  xxiv,  45  ;  Luke  x,  7;  Acts 
XX,  28  ;  1  Cor.  ix,  7-14  ;  Gal.  vi,  6-8  ;  1  Tim.  iii,  4,  5  ; 
Heb.  xiii,  17.  Any  limitation  of  this  power  in  ministers, 
by  the  exercise  of  lay  influence,  is  Scriptural,  so  long  as 
it  leaves  the  minister  in  possession  of  that  authority  by 
which  he  can  regularly,  when  needful,  exercise  the  power 
of  governing,  as  well  as  of  feeding,  the  flock.  All  beyond 
this  is  unscriptural.  The  people  ruling  the  minister,  is 
the  sheep  ruling  the  shepherd!  It  is  absurd,  as  well  as 
unscriptural.  It  wall  always  lead  to  the  corruption  of  the 
truth  in  a  man-pleasing  ministry.  It  is  as  inimical  to  holi- 
ness of  life,  as  it  is  to  truth  of  doctrine  :  discipline  will  be 
relaxed,  the  hedge  of  the  Lord's  vineyard  will  be  broken 
down,  and  the  wild  boar  of  the  wilderness  will  spoil  the 
vine.  When  ministers  are,  in  themselves,  or  in  their  mi- 
nistry and  government,  clearly  contrary  to  the  Scriptures, 
they  lose  their  authority,  and  the  obligation  of  the  people 
to  obey  them  ceases.     See  section  iv  of  this  Essay. 

i\.s  to  ministers  with  ministers:  they  are  all,  by  divine 
right,  equal.     They  are   all  to   aim  at  edification,  order, 


300        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  efficiency.  Gifts  differ.  Some  men  have  talents  for 
government,  some  for  evangelists,  some  for  pastors.  It  is 
consonant  to  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  the  church 
should  arrange  for  each  man  to  occupy  that  place  for  which 
he  is  most  qualified,  and  which  will  most  promote  the 
order  and  edification  of  the  church.  Any  such  arrange- 
ment is  warranted  by  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
reasons  of  order  and  edification,  and  by  the  judgment  of 
the  greatest  and  best  men  of  all  ages.  All  these  human 
arrangements  must  be  subordinate  to,  and  in  accordance 
with,  the  great  principle,  that  all  ministers  are,  by  divine 
right,  equal.  The  moment  they  violate  this  principle,  they 
become  unscriptural.  They  set  up  human  authority  above 
the  word  of  God — all  other  ministers  are  degraded — war 
is  made  upon  the  peace  of  the  church — antichrist  begins 
to  reign. 

As  this  is  a  point  of  so  great  importance,  a  little  enlarge- 
ment will  be  in  strict  accordance  with  the  design  of  this 
Essay : — • 

Scriptural  episcopacy  is,  strictly,  the  feeding  and 
governing  of  the  flock  ;  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  govern- 
ing ministers.  Every  true  minister  is  a  Scriptural  bishop. 
See  section  v. 

Scriptural  church  polity,  as  appears  by  the  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  example  of  the  apostles,  by  the 
duty  of  doing  all  to  edification,  allows  of,  and  countenances, 
such  prudential  arrangements  among  the  ministers,  as  that 
some  should  have  more  eminently  the  ofiice  of  governing 
in  the  church,  presiding  in  the  councils  of  ministers,  &c. ; 
and  that  others  should  more  particularly  labour  as  evange- 
lists, as  pastors,  as  doctors  or  teachers  ;  others  as  apostles 
or  missionaries.  This  arrangement  must  never  interfere 
with  the  principle  that  the  act  of  every  true  minister  in 
preaching,  baptizing,  administering  the  Lord's  supper,  and 
ordaining  to  the  ministry,  or  governing  the  church,  is,  by 
divine  right,  equal  to  that  of  any  other  minister.  A  super- 
intendency  thus  restricted  and  guarded  is  not  antiscrip- 
tural :  it  violates  no  law  laid  down  there  :  it  is  recom- 
mended by  the  distribution  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 
no  ecclesiastical  tyranny  can  be  exercised  by  it:  it  pro- 
motes order,  union,  strength,  and  the  edification  of  the 
whole.     Call  it  episcopacy,  if  you  please  :  the  name  is  not 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        301 

very  important,  only  define  the  thing.  I  think  the  term 
episcopacy  is  not  to  be  commended,  because  by  episcopus^ 
or  bishop,  the  Scriptures  never  mean  a  superintendent  of 
ministers,  but  only  of  the  Jlock ;  and  because  the  use  of  the 
word  in  ecclesiastical  writers  has  become  ambiguous ;  and 
will,  therefore,  always  leave  room  for  cavilling,  and  pre- 
tences to  ecclesiastical  tyranny.  It  is  against  the  strictest 
rules  of  right  reason  designedly  to  put  an  ambiguous  word 
into  a  definition ;  the  man  that  does  it  is  a  promoter  of 
confusion,  and  not  of  peace. 

Episcopacy  in  the  Church  of  England,  viewed  as  the 
reformers  viewed  it,  was,  in  other  words,  a  superintend- 
ENCY  of  no  more  than  human  authority,  designed  for  the 
order,  edification,  and  good  government  of  the  church, 
established  on  the  principle  that  all  ministers,  by  divine 
right,  are  equal.  All  her  ministers,  who  are  qualified  by 
piety,  talents,  and  divine  knowledge ;  by  the  special  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  moving  them  to  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try ;  and  who  are  solemnly  set  apart  to  it  according  to  the 
usages  of  that  church,  are  true  ministers  of  Christ.  But 
every  wicked  man,  in  this  or  in  any  other  church,  every 
unconverted  man,  however  set  apart,  is  a  wolf,  is  a  hire- 
ling, a  thief  and  a  robber  in  the  church.  Let  him  repent, 
and  give  himself  to  God.  Then,  if  he  finds  himself  quali- 
fied by  piety,  and  gifts,  and  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
if  the  church  be  willing  still  to  receive  him,  he  will  be  a 
true  minister.  But  the  attempts  to  claim  authority  for 
bishops,  as  an  order  by  divine  right,  on  the  high  Church 
succession  scheme,  either  in  that  church,  or  out  of  that 
church,  is  to  declare  war  against  the  divine  right  of  all 
true  ministers,  and  against  the  peace  and  security  of  every 
Christian  church.  The  advocates  of  these  claims  are  the 
SCHISMATICS,  or  causers  of  division.  They  should  be 
marked  and  shunned  by  every  friend  to  the  peace  of  the 
church.  The  man  who  aids  them,  or  who  wishes  them 
God  speed,  becomes  a  partaker  of  their  sin,  and  an  enemy 
to  the  peace  of  the  church. 

Antichrist  came  into  the  church  by  an  unguarded  use 
of  ministerial  superintendency.  "  The  common  appella- 
tion of  bishops,"  says  Beza,  "  was  that  of  minister,  until, 
for  the  sake  of  government,  one  minister  was  placed  over 
the  others,  and  began  to  be  distinguished  by  the  name  of 


302        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

bishop.  Justin  Martyr  calls  him  the  president.  It  was 
from  this  that  the  devil  began  to  place  the  first  foundation 
of  tyranny  in  the  church,  bringing  in  the  notion  that  the 
WHOLE  GOVERNMENT  of  the  church  was,  together  Avith  the 
name,  given  into  the  hands  of  one  person.  The  scheme 
went  on  from  the  bishop  [of  a  diocess]  to  the  metropolitan 
[of  a  province] — from  metropolitans  to  patriarchs."  Lastly, 
the  pope  claims  to  be  universal  bishop,  the  lord  over 
the  whole  church,  and  to  sit  as  God  in  the  temple  of  God ! 
This  is  the  very  character  and  image  of  antichrist.  "  Let 
no  man  deceive  you  by  any  means,  for  that  day  shall  not 
come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away  first,  and  that  man 
of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition ;  who  opposeth 
and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that 
is  worshipped  ;  so  that  he  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of 
God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God,"  2  Thess.  ii,  3,  4. 

All  attempts  to  make  ministers  lords  over  God's  herit- 
age is  treason  to  the  peace  of  the  church,  and  leads  to 
antichrist.  Episcopacy,  by  divine  right,  is  such  an  attempt. 
It  is  antiscriptural,  intolerant,  and  antichristian.  It  sets 
up,  as  we  have  before  said,  Anglican  Poperv  with  many 
heads,  in  the  place  of  Roman  Popery  with  one  head. 
Both  have  the  same  mind,  the  mind  of  the  beast ;  and 
both  make  war  on  the  church  of  God.  Both  also  spread 
out  this  spiritual  tyranny  through  the  whole  priesthood,  by 
pretences  to  a  peculiar  priestly  poiuer  to  effect  wonders 
merely  by  their  official  acts.  They  can  change  the  bread 
and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  they  can  ab- 
solve sinners  by  their  ministerial  authority  ;  they  can  seal, 
saints,  &c.,  though  as  wicked  as  Satan  themselves.  They 
have  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell.  They  can  depose  kings, 
can  curse  or  give  away  kingdoms.  They  can  be  very  Pro- 
tcuses,  can  become  gods  or  devils  as  they  choose.  These 
things  are  literally  true,  as  to  Roman  Popery.  As  to  An- 
glican Popery,  we  can  only  judge  the  child  by  its  parent. 
As  a  child,  it  has  had  its  deeds  of  darkness  and  horror, 
its  five  mile  acts,  conventicle  acts,  Bartholomew  days,  Sfc. 
Heaven  forbid  its  maturity  ! 

All  the  other  Protestant  churches  in  Europe,  with  some 
trifling  exceptions,  have  laid  aside  the  episcopal  mode  of 
church  government :  they  are  governed  by  presbyters. 
Presbyters  ordain,  and  perform  all  the  offices  arrd  duties  of 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        303 

the  Christian  ministry.  These  presbyters  are  all  Scrip- 
tural bishops,  each  having  immediate  oversight  over  the 
flock.  In  some  churches,  as  in  the  Lutheran  and  the 
Wesleyan  churches,  a  superintendency  of  one  minister 
over  other  ministers,  as  well  as  over  the  people,  is 
established.  This  is  a  mere  prudential  arrangement,  and 
not  of  divine  right.  The  model  of  all  these  churches  is 
more  Scriptural  and  apostolical  than  the  episcopal  form : 
the  model  of  the  episcopal  government  arose  only  from 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Episcopacy,  by  divine  right,  has 
neither  the  authority  of  Scripture,  nor  Christian  antiquity  ; 
it  is  a  USURPATION  of  modern  times.  It  is  simply  an 
attempt  to  establish  a  popedom  of  bishops,  instead  of  his 
HOLINESS  of  Rome. 

Church  and  state  : — 

The  state  is  a  civil  government :  the  church  is  a  spiritual 
government.  ,  Kings  and  magistrates  are  the  heads  of  the 
state :  ministers  of  the  gospel  are,  under  Christ,  the  heads 
of  the  church.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  state  is  only  a  civil 
jurisdiction  :  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church  is  only  spiritual. 
The  end  of  the  state  government  is  the  peace  and  order  of 
the  state,  with  the  security  of  the  rights  of  persons  and 
property  to  every  member  or  subject  of  the  state  :  the  end 
of  church  government  is  ih.e  peace,  order,  and  purity  of  the 
church,  the  edification  of  its  members,  and  the  conversion 
of  sinners  to  God.  Such  are  the  nature,  laws,  and  ends,  of 
the  church  and  the  state,  respectively. 

But  what  is  to  be  said  -abovXlhQ  connection  of  church  and 
state  ?  Every  man,  of  course,  has  a  right  to  form  his  own 
opinion  ;  and,  while  he  obeys  all  the  civil  laws  of  the 
state,  is  loyal  to  the  king  or  queen,  as  supreme  civil  magis- 
trate, and  persecutes  none  for  differing  from  him,  no  per- 
son has  any  right  to  hinder  the  peaceable  expression  of 
his  opinion.  The  New  Testament,  I  think,  neither  com- 
mands nor  prohibits  the  matter.  It  is,  therefore,  in  the 
abstract,  not  unscriptural ;  neither  is  it  necessary.  If  it 
takes  place,  it  must,  to  be  countenanced  by  true  Christi- 
anity, be  under  such  limitations  as  the  nature,  and  laws, 
and  end  of  each  government,  require.  The  state  may 
supply  pecuniary  support  to  the  church.  This  is  plain 
from  the  nature  of  the  thing.  Any  person  may  appropri- 
ate his  money  to  the  support  of  any  thing  that  is  lawful-. 


304       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

tlie  state  is  a  collection  of  persons,  and  may  do  the  same. 
To  promote  the  support  of  gospel  ministers  is  lawful; 
therefore  the  state  may  support  gospel  ministers.  But 
then  the  state  cannot,  hy  divine  authority,  make  laws  for 
church  government,  simply  as  such ;  because  its  power  is 
ONLY  civil :  these  laws  are  only  spiritual.  For  the  same 
reason,  the  state  catinot,  by  divine  authority,  either  elect  or 
appoint  the  ministers  of  the  church,  simply  as  gospel 
ministers,  nor  depose  the  same,  any  more  than  the  church 
can  appoint  ministers  of  state,  and  depose  the  same.  The 
pope  has  as  much  right  to  depose  kings,  as  kings  have  to 
depose  gospel  ministers.  The  confounding  of  these  things 
was  the  cause  of  the  horrible  wars  between  the  popes  and 
the  German  emperors.  Opposition  to  any  civil  govern- 
ment, in  the  exercise  of  its  own  proper  authority,  under 
any  pretence  of  religion,  is  ungodliness  and  rebellion  ;  and 
the  civil  sword  ought  to  punish  and  repress  it.  There 
can  be  no  peace  to  either  church  or  state,  but  by  each 
keeping  distinctly  within  its  own  sphere.  The  state  has 
a  right  to  demand  obedience  to  the  civil  laws,  and  loyalty 
to  the  king  and  constitution,  from  every  subject  of  the 
realm.  Protestantism  teaches  loyalty  to  all  kings  :  Popery 
denies  allegiance  to  all  Protestant  sovereigns,  by  the  fourth 
Lateran  council.  No  pretences  about  the  good  of  the 
church  should  be  suffered  for  one  moment  to  interfere 
with  this  point.  Where  there  is  not  true  allegiance  to  the 
civil  magistrate,  there  is  no  true  claim  to  civil  rights  or 
privileges.  But  then,  this  allegiance  being  secured,  with 
obedience  to  all  the  civil  laws  of  the  state,  the  authority 
of  the  state  extends  no  further.  Every  man,  as  a 
peaceful  and  loyal  subject,  has  a  right  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience.  And 
every  society  of  men,  while  obedient  to  the  civil  laws,  and 
loyal  to  the  state,  have  a  right,  so  far  as  the  state  is  con- 
cerned, to  form  regulations  for  their  own  worship  and 
church  discipline.  If  they  choose  to  give  up  this  right  to 
the  state,  in  whole  or  in  part,  then,  so  far  as  such  a  society 
is  concerned,  the  state  has  a  right  to  exercise  it.  But  the 
good  of  both  will  be  best  secured  by  keeping  them  per- 
fectly distinct.  The  state  may  give  its  support  to  any 
peculiar  form  of  faith  ;  but  it  has  no  divine  right  to  inter- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       305 

fere,  by  force,  with  any  other  forms  of  faith  or  worship,  so 
long  as  the  individuals  following  those  forms  are  loyal 
SUBJECTS  to  the  civil  government,  and  to  the  king  as  su- 
preme civil  magistrate  ;  otherwise  the  state  might  lawfully 
establish  heathenism,  or  Mohammedanism^  and  persecute 
Christianity.  Any  particular  section  of  the  church  may 
accept  of  this  support  from  a  civil  government,  so  long  as 
it  is  done  consistently  with  the  nature,  laws,  and  end  of 
that  church,  and  of  all  other  Christian  churches.  As  to 
its  own  interests, — it  should  make  its  own  spiritual  or 
purely  ecclesiastical  laws  ;  elect  and  appoint  its  own  min- 
isters, as  ministers  of  the  gospel ;  and  administer  spiritual 
discipline  over  its  own  members.  To  bring  in  the  secular 
arm  in  any  of  these  cases,  is  unchristian  :  it  will  also 
inevitably  secularize  and  corrupt  the  church.  A  state 
CHURCH  has  no  authority  over  other  churches,  be- 
cause of  its  pecuniary  support  from  the  state.  The  state 
can  give  it  none.  The  state  has  no  authority  but  civil 
authority.  Civil  authority  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
conduct  of  individuals,  except  as  am/ members  of  the  state. 
In  fact,  any  particular  state  church  is  rather  under  obli- 
gation to  the  members  of  all  other  particular  churches /or 
their  part  m  the  support  of  that  church.  The  members  of 
any  particular  church  have  a  civil  right  to  object  in  an 
orderly,  constitutional,  and  peaceable  manner,  to  the  state 
support  of  another  particular  church.  If  the  state  church 
becomes  proud  and  persecuting,  because  of  its  state 
SUPPORT,  then,  it  would  seem,  that  a  serious  Christian 
would  be  bound  to  withhold  his  influence  from  its  support. 
If  he  thinks  he  ought  to  do  more,  he  is  justified,  so  that 
he  does  it  peaceably,  orderly,  and  constitutionally.  If  he 
thinks  otherwise,  he  ought  to  act  as  a  conscientious  man. 
Let  no  man  condemn  him. 

Such  are  the  principles  taught  in  the  word  of  God; 
such  also  are  the  principles  advocated  in  this  Essay ;  and 
such  are  their  consequences.  The  church  of  the  living 
God  is  a  spiritual  church :  all  true  believers  everywhere 
constitute  this  church.  They  are  "  one  body,  there  is 
one  Spirit,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is 
above  and  through  all,  and  in  all"  The  ministers  of  this 
church  are  all  brethren.     We  are  to  call  no  man  master 


306        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

upon  earth,  for  one  is  our  Master  in  heaven,  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ.  "  Jesus  said  unto  the  apostles,  Ye  know  that 
the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them, 
and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon  them,"  that 
is,  act  as  lords  over  them  ;  "  but  it  shall  not  be  so  among 
you  ;  but  w^hosoever  M^ill  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be 
your  minister ^  Matt,  xx,  25,  26.  "  But  unto  every  one  of  us 
is  given  grace  according  to  the  measure  of  Christ.  Where- 
fore, when  he  ascended  up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  cap- 
tive, and  gave  gifts  unto  men:  and  he  gave  some,  apostles  ; 
and  some,  prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some,  pas- 
tors and  teachers  ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ." 
Ephesians  iv,  7-13. 

Fellow  Protestants,  of  every  denomination,  the  writer 
would  address  you  all  as  brethren.  If  he  knows  his  own 
heart,  he  writes  to  promote  unity  among  Protestants, 
as  brethren.  But  this  unity  can  only  be  established  by 
putting  aside  all  principles  that  exclude  and -persecute  such  as 
hold  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  and  sufficient  rule  of 
FAITH  and  PRACTICE  :  such  as,  on  the  faith  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, embrace  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  ;  the  perfection 
and  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  the  divinity 
and  sanctifying  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  justification 
by  faith  alone  in  that  atonement ;  sanctification  through 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  living  faith  ;  and 
Scriptural  holiness  as  the  fruits  of  this  faith,  and  as  the 
way  to  heaven.  Wherever  these  are,  uncorrupted  by  any 
paramount  errors,  Christ  is  there  ;  the  church  of  God  is 
there.  The  form  of  worship  may  differ  ;  but  there  is  "  the 
way,  the  truth,  and  the  life."  Christianity  does  not 
depend  on  forms  of  church  government,  but  on  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  Jesus.  On  this  rock  Christ  builds  his  church, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 

Will  you,  on  these  principles, — the  principles  of  the 
Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible, — will 
you  on  these  principles,  give  me,  give  every  one  that  re- 
ceives them,  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  ?    I  trust  you 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        307 

will.  I  most  cordially  do  it  to  every  one,  whatever  may 
be  the  denomination  he  may  have  among  men,  who  thus 
receives  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  To  me,  there  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  as 
to  such,  for  we  have  all  been  baptized  into  one  body,  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit.  We  are  one 
and  the  same  church — one  and  the  same  body  of  Christ. 
The  little  differences  of  doctrine,  or  modes  of  worship,  that 
are  found  among  such,  do  not  affect  the  essentials  of  our 
Christianity.  Genuine  Protestantism  is  one  ;  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all ; 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 
In  this  view  of  Protestantism  as  one,  one  body,  the  address 
.of  the  apostle  is  beautiful — may  the  Holy  Spirit  write  it 
on  the  heart  of  every  Protestant! — "For  as  the  body  is 
one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that 
one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body  :  so  also  is  Christ.  For 
by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether 
we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit.  For  the  body 
is  not  one  member,  but  many.  If  the  foot  shall  say.  Be- 
cause I  am  not  the  hand,  I  am  not  of  the  body  ;  is  it  there- 
fore not  of  the  body  ?  And  if  the  ear  shall  say,  Because  I 
am  not  the  eye,  I  am  not  of  the  body  ;  is  it  therefore  not  of 
the  body  ?  If  the  whole  body  were  an  eye,  where  were 
the  hearing  ?  If  the  whole  were  hearing,  where  were  the 
smelling  ?  But  now  hath  God  set  the  members  every  one 
of  them  in  the  body,  as  it  hath  pleased  him.  And  if  they 
were  all  one  member,  where  were  the  body  ?  But  now  are 
they  many  members,  yet  but  one  body.  And  the  eye  cannot 
say  unto  the  hand,  I  have  no  need  of  thee  :  nor  again  the 
head  to  the  feet,  I  have  no  need  of  you.  Nay,  much  more 
those  members  of  the  body,  which  seem  to  be  more  feeble, 
are  necessary  :  and  those  members  of  the  body  which  we 
think  to  be  less  honourable,  upon  these  we  bestow  more 
abundant  honour ;  and  our  uncomely  parts  have  more 
abundant  comeliness.  For  our  comely  parts  have  no  need : 
but  God  hath  tempered  the  body  together,  having  given 
more  abundant  honour  to  that  part  which  lacked :  that 
there  should  be  no  schism  in  the  body  ;  but  that  the 
members  should  have  the  same  care,  one  for   another. 


308        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

And  whether  one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer 
with  it ;  or  one  member  be  honoured,  all  the  members  re- 
joice with  it."  1  Cor.  xii,  12-26. 

Popery,  brethren,  according  to  all  the  venerable  re- 
formers, whether  in  the  valleys  of  the  Alps,  in  Switzer- 
land, in  Bohemia,  in  Germany,  in  France,  or  in  Britain, — 
Popery  is  antichrist.  It  is  an  awful  corruption  of 
Christianity.  It  is  spiritual  whoredom  ;  the  church  for- 
saking her  covenant  with  God,  and  playing  the  harlot  with 
other  gods  and  other  lords.  "  So  he  carried  me  away  in 
the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  :  and  I  saw  a  woman  sit 
upon  a  scarlet-coloured  beast,  full  of  names  of  blasphemy, 
having  seven  heads  and  ten  horns.  And  the  woman  was 
arrayed  in  purple  and  scarlet  colour,  and  decked  with  gold 
and  precious  stones  and  pearls,  having  a  golden  cup  in  her 
hand  full  of  abominations  and  filthiness  of  her  fornication  : 
and  upon  her  forehead  was  a  name  written,  Mystery, 
Babylon  the  Great,  the  mother  of  harlots  and  abominations 
of  the  earth.  And  I  saw  the  woman  drunken  with  the 
blood  of  the  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of 
Jesus  :  and  when  I  saw  her,  I  wondered  with  great  admi- 
ration." Rev.  xvii,  3-6.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  been 
drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of 
the  martyrs  of  Jesus, 

PoPERy  is  UNCHANGEABLE.  Popevy  IS  swom  hostility 
to  Protestantism.  Every  Papist  is  taught  this  as  an  article 
of  his  creed.  All  out  of  the  Church  of  Rome  she  holds 
as  HERETICS  :  Protestants  she  holds  as  heretics.  She  curses 
them  with  the  most  dreadful  curses.  Every  Papist  so- 
lemnly says  in  his  creed,  "  I  do,  in  like  manner,  con- 
demn, REJECT,  and  curse  them."  And  he  concludes  : 
"  This  true  Catholic  faith  out  of  which  no  one  can  be  saved, 
which  I  do  now,  of  my  own  accord,  profess  and  truly  do 
hold,  the  same  I  will  take  care  to  retain  whole  and  invio- 
late most  constantly,  so  far  as  I  am  able,  unto  the  latest 
breath  of  my  life  ;  and,  by  the  assistance  of  God,  I  will  take 
care  that  those  who  are  subject  to  me,  or  whose  care  in 
the  place  I  am  in  shall  belong  to  me,  shall  hold,  teach, 
and  preach  the  same  also." 

"  I,  the  same  N.,  do  promise,  vow,  and  swear  this.  So 
may  God,  and  these  holy  Gospels  of  God,  help  me  /" 


fc  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  309 

'^  Popeiy  makes  no  difference  in  her  denunciations  against 

heretics,  as  in  the  Establishment,  or  as  of  other  denomina- 
'  tions.  She  curses  that  Church  and  the  king  or  the  queen, 
B.S  fiercely  as  she  curses  the  meanest  subject  of  the  realm. 
The  pope  thus  cursed  Queen  Elizabeth  as  a  heretic  : 
"  Moreover  we  do  declare  her  to  be  deprived  of  her 
PRETENDED  TITLE  to  the  kingdom,  and  of  all  domi?iio?i, 
dignity,  and  privilege  whatsoever.  And  also  the  nohility, 
subjects,  and  people  of  the  said  kingdom,  and  all  others 
which  have  in  any  sort  sworn  unto  her,  to  be  for  ever  ab- 
soLYEDfrom  any  such  oath,  and  all  manner  of  duty,  of  do- 
minion, ALLEGIANCE,  and  ohcdicnce ;  as  we  also  do  by  the 
authority  of  these  presents,  absolve  them,  and  do  deprive 
the  same  Elizabeth  of  her  pretended  title  to  the  kingdomy 
and  all  other  things  aforesaid ;  and  we  do  command  and 
interdict  all  and  every  the  noblemen,  subjects,  people^ 
and  others  aforesaid,  that  they  presume  not  to  obey  her, 
or  her  ministers,  mandates,  and  laws  ;  and  those  who 
shall  do  the  contrary,  we  bind  in  the  same  sentence  to  be 

ACCURSED. 

"  Given  at  Rome,  at  St.  Peter's,  in  the  year  of  the  In- 
carnation of  our  Lord  1570." — Bull  of  Pope  Pius  V. 

This  bull  is  given  in  "perpetual  memorial  of  the 
matter — ^that  the  bishop  of  Rome,  as  Peter's  successor,  has 
ALONE  been  made  Prince  over  all  people^  and  all  king- 
doms,   to   PLUCK    UP,    DESTROY,    SCATTER,   CONSUME,   plant 

and  build,  that  he  may  retain  the  faithful  that  are  knit  to- 
gether with  the  bond  of  charity,  in  the  unity  of  the  Spirit, 
and  present  them  spotless  and  unblameable  to  their 
Saviour." 

These  things  show  what  Popery  is,  and  what  Protest- 
ants have  TO  expect  from  Popery, 

What,  then,  is  the  wisdom  of  Protestants  ?  The  watch- 
word of  the  enemy  is,  "  Divide  and  conquer ^  Let  the  motto 
of  Protestants  be,  "  The  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
BOND  OF  PEACE."  Let  no  Protestants  set  up  exclusive, 
intolerant  schemes  against  their  fellow  Protestants.  He 
that  does  so  is  an  enemy  to  Protestantism,  and  a  friend  to 
Popery.  This  Essay  has  been  written  to  expose,  refute, 
and  put  away  a  scheme  of  this  kind,  already  sufficiently 
characterized.     The  author  requests  the  co-operation  of 


310        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

every  true  Protestant  in  this  design.  If  there  are  any  de- 
fects in  the  Essay,  (and  the  author  is  far  from  considering 
it  faultless,)  let  them  be  pointed  out  and  corrected.  If  any 
can  do  better,  he  wishes  them  success.  May  the  great 
Head  of  the  church  pour  the  Spirit  out  upon  all  pious 
MINISTERS,  and  upon  all  their  congregations  ;  may 
he  send  faithful  shepherds  to  his  flock  everywhere  ;  and 
may  the  kingdom  of  our  God  speedily  come,  and  all  the 
ends  of  the  earth  see  his  salvation  !    Amen ! 


A    CRITIQUE 

ON   THE 

HON.  AND  REV.  MR.  PERCEVAL'S  APOLOGY 

FOR    THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 


On  Saturday,  Sept.  21,  1839,  the  following  announce- 
ment appeared  in  the  Leeds  Intelligencer  : — '•  An  Apology 
for  the  Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession,  with  an  Appen- 
dix on  the  English  Orders,  by  the  Honourable  and  Rev.  A. 
P.  Perceval,  B.  C.  L.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 
This  work,  as  the  preface  states,  has  been  written  at  the 
request  of  the  vicar  of  Leeds,  and  with  the  assistance  of 
several  prelates  and  divines  of  the  Church  of  England. 
It  is  a  complete  answer  to  a  pamphlet  lately  published  by 
a  Mr.  Powell." 

The  Leeds  Intelligencer  is,  in  church  matters,  under  the 
influence  of  Dr.  Hook  and  his  party.  The  above  state- 
ment, therefore,  seems  to  demand  that  the  author  of  the 
Essay  on  Apostolical  Succession  should  give  his  readers 
an  account  of  this  answer  to  his  work.  The  writer  of  the 
notice  of  Mr.  Perceval's  Apology  evidently  felt  himself  in 
an  awkward  predicament.  A  Dissenting  teacher,  a  Mr. 
Powell,  had  published  something  on  apostolical  succes- 
sion, a  subject  dear  as  life  to  every  high  Church  priest. 
Of  course  Dr.  Hook,  the  vicar  of  Leeds,  a  spiritual  de- 
scendant of  Pope  Vitalian,  Alexander  III.,  Innocent  HI., 
Innocent  IV.,  Nicholas  III.,  &c.,  &c.,  knew  his  superiority 
too  well  to  deign  any  notice  of  "  a  pamphlet,  by  a  Mr. 
Powell."  However,  the  public  deigned  to  notice  it ;  and 
about  two  thousand  copies  were  sold  in  little  more  than  a 
twelvemonth.  Many  periodicals  pronounced  a  high 
opinion  on  the  work.     Churchmen  are  convinced  by  it ; 


312  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  Dissenters  feel  confirmed  in  the  superiority  o{  their 
own  ministry. 

Dr.  Hook  is  not  miconscious  of  these  things.  He, 
therefore,  particularly  requests  his  friend  the  Honourable 
and  Reverend  A.  P.  Perceval,  brother  chaplain  to  the 
queen,  to  prepare  an  antidote.  This  is  undertaken  :  seve- 
ral prelates  and  divines  assist  in  the  work,  and  it  is  dedi- 
cated to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  "  A  pamphlet  by 
a  Mr.  Powell"  is  greatly  honoured  by  all  this.  However, 
this  Mr.  Powell  is  such  a  strange  sort  of  creature  that  he 
feels  no  gratitude  when  no  favour  is  intended  ;  and  what 
he  does  not  feel,  he  despises  to  affect.  Yet  certainly  this 
"  complete  answer"  to  his  work  shall  be  examined. 

The  Apology  of  Mr.  Perceval  presents  one  difficulty, 
which,  I  hope,  few  Dissenting  productions  exhibit.  The 
difficulty  is  this  ;  Mr.  Perceval  generally  answers  his  op- 
ponents by  assertions,  and  not  by  proofs  of  their  mistakes. 
But  this  is  probably  one  of  the  advantages  possessed  by 
gentlemen  of  the  succession,  that  they  have  authority  to 
be  believed  without  proofs  ;  and  Dissenters  have  not.  We 
have  learned  from  a  very  old  Dissenter  from  these  gentlemen, 
to  "  prove  all  things,  and  to  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 

Dr.  Hook  proclaimed  that  the  spiritual  descent  of  "  every 
bishop,  priest,  and  deacon,  was  evident  to  every  one  who 
chose  to  investigate  it."  Now  what  is  sO  evident  to  every 
one,  must  be  capable  of  easy  demonstration :  but  Mr.  Per- 
ceval, in  answer  to  the  objection  in  the  Essay,  that  there 
is  "  no  sufficient  historic  evidence  of  a  perpetual  succes- 
sion of  valid  episcopal  ordinations,"  says, "  If  nothing  will 
satisfy  men  but  actual  demonstration,"  (sufficient  historic 
evidence  was  the  question,)  "  /  yield  at  once^''  p.  79. 
This  pamphlet  has  done  something  :  the  chosen  champion 
of  the  succession  scheme  "  yields  at  once''''  that  there  is  no 
sufficient  historic  evidence  to  support  it ! 

Still  Mr.  Perceval  hugs  the  scheme,  though  he  "  yields 
at  once,"  that  it  has  no  sufficient  historic  evidence  to  sup- 
port it.  He  considers  it  to  be  "  an  article  of  this  one  faith, 
[of  the  Bible,]  and  to  be  the  authority  for  that  one  baptism" 
of  the  Bible,  p.  62  :  and  justly  concludes,  that  there  is  "  a 
consequence  springing  from  these  premises  if  established  : 
in  respect,  namely,  of  the  paramount  and  exclusive  claim 
upon  the  obedience  of  all  Christians  within  the  British 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       313 

diocesses  which  belongs  to  the  bishops  of  those  diocesses," 
pp.  237,  238.  And  he  has  the  courage  to  denounce  the 
orders  of  all  the  Protestant  churches  of  "  Germany,  Den- 
mark, France,  Scotland,  England,  Ireland,  and  North 
America,"  (the  Episcopal  Church  excepted  in  the  latter,) 
^^ pretended  orders,"  and  their  power  of  ordination,  a  ^^  fan- 
cied power  of  ordination,"  pp.  54,  45. 

It  is  very  amusing,  too,  to  learn,  that  if  Dissenting  teach- 
ers dispute  this,  and  tell  such  gentlemen  as  Mr.  Perceval, 
that,  to  pronounce  such  a  sentence  of  excommunication 
against  all  these  churches,  without  the  clearest,  strongest 
Scriptural  proof,  is  semi-popish,  bigoted,  and  intolerant, — 
then,  Mr.  Perceval  says,  this  is  persecuting  the  Church  of 
England.  Hear  him  at  p.  62  :  "  It  is,"  says  he,  "  I  believe 
chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  on  account  of  the  exclusiveness  of 
the  doctrine  that  we  who  maintain  it  are  exposed  to  ha- 
tred and  reviling  ;  and  if  we  may  judge  from  the  language 
of  our  revilers,  shall  have  to  endure  persecution,  if  it  shall 
be  in  their  power  to  inflict  it.  If  we  would  be  content  to 
teach  episcopacy  as  one  among  many  schemes  equally  true 
or  equally  doubtful,  it  should  seem,  from  their  latest  writ- 
ings, that  we  should  not  he  disturbed;  but  because  we 
teach  it,  as  the  Scriptures  and  the  church  have  delivered 
it  to  us,  exclusively,  therefore  the  loorld  hateth  us.  Just 
so,  if  the  early  Christians  could  have  been  contented  to 
profess  their  religion,  as  one  of  the  six  hundred  tolerated 
by  heathen  Rome,  and  had  been  liberal  enough,  according 
to  the  modern  abuse  of  the  term,  to  regard  all  religion  as 
pretty  much  alike,  they  would  have  had  no  n:eed  to  endure 
the  cross,  the  stake,  or  the  teeth  of  wild  beasts :  but  be- 
cause they  taught  their  religion,  as  the  Scriptures  and  the 
church  had  delivered  it  to  them,  exclusively,  therefore  the 
world  hated  them.  While,  therefore,  the  charge  of  exclu- 
siveness is  an  argument  in  our  favour  against  whom  it  is 
brought,  seeing  that  we  bear  it  in  common  with  the  primi- 
tive martyrs  ;  it  is  an  argument  against  those  who  bring  it, 
seeing  that  they  do  so,  in  common  with  the  very  heathen." 
We  have  quoted  the  whole  of  this  paragraph,  for  the  pur- 
pose, among  other  things,  of  giving  a  specimen  of  Mr.  Per- 
ceval's views,  reasoning,  and  style.  He  is  in  a  dreadful 
fright,  it  seems,  lest  "  the  world,"  the  heathenish  dissenters, 
should  call  the  successionists  to  martyrdom  !  Good  man  ! 
14 


314       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

We  will  relieve  him,  by  assuring  him  that  the  only  perse- 
cution he  has  to  fear  from  us,  is  one  or  other  of  the  follow- 
ing tortures  :  either,  first,  To  prove  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  this  exclusive  doctrine ;  or,  secondly.  To  withdraw 
his  denunciations  and  excommunications  of  other  Protest- 
ant churches  ;  or,  thirdly.  If  he  will  continue  them,  withovt 
Scriptural  proof s  to  support  them^  then  that  he  be  published 
to  the  world  as  a  semi-papist,  a  bigot,  a  persecutor,  and  a 
disturber  of  the  peace  of  God's  church.  So  far  are  we 
from  persecution,  that  he  bears  witness  to  the  contrary,  by 
saying,  that,  if  high  Churchmen  would  be  content  that  their 
scheme  should  be  allowed  "  as  one  among  many,"  we 
should  NOT  disturb  them.  Then  it  seems  we  only  want  to 
live  and  let  live.  Is  this  persecution  ?  But  what  shall  be 
said  of  men  who  really  and  seriously  maintain,  that  if  they 
cannot  reign  alone,  and  eoetinguish  all  other  churches,  they 
are  injured,  reviled,  about  to  be  martyrs,  and  given  to  the 
teeth  of  wild  beasts  ! ! 

While  noticing  miscellaneous  matters,  it  may  not  be  im- 
proper to  make  a  brief  observation  or  two  on  a  note  at  page 
25,  in  which  he  charges  me  with  "  denying  that  the  apos- 
tles had  any  sole  jurisdiction  ;"  and  concludes  it  by  observ- 
ing that  they  who  "  carp  at  the  authority  of  bishops,  pre- 
sently proceed  to  carp  at  that  of  the  apostles,  and  will  pro- 
bably not  be  deterred  from  carping  at  that  of  our  Lord  him- 
self." Now  as  to  what  he  calls  "  denying  that  the  apos- 
tles had  any  sole  jurisdiction,"  my  language,  even  as 
quoted  by  himself,  is  this :  "  There  is  no  very  clear  evi- 
dence." And  again,  "  I  think  we  find  no  declared  autho- 
rity solely  belonging  to  them  as  apostles,  to  call  any  minis- 
ters to  account,  or  to  depose  them."  Is  this  "  denying"  the 
thing,  by  merely  expressing  a  thought  dubiously  ? — or,  by 
saying,  if  there  be  any  evidence,  it  is  not  "  very  clear 
evidence  ?"  "  One  might  have  thought,"  says  Mr.  Perce- 
val, "  that  the  sentence  concerning  certain  false  teachers 
*  whom  I  have  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  might  learn 
not  to  blaspheme,'  1  Tim.  i,  20,  had  been  proof  sufficient 
of  such  authority,  and  of  the  exercise  of  it."  What  Mr. 
Perceval  might  have  thought,  and  what  is  "  very  clear  evi- 
dence," may  be  different  things.  Now  let  us  examine 
a  little  the  only  parallel  case  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament,  agreeing  to  the  statement  made  in  the  Essay, 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        315 

viz.,  in  churches  already  planted,  having  ministers  already 
appointed  over  them — the  case  is  found  1  Cor.  v.  1-13. 
In  this  case,  though  the  church  had  neglected  its  duty, 
yet  the  apostle  does  not  proceed  ^o  excommunicate,  even 
this  private  member,  on  his  own  sole  authority.  He  directs  a 
church  court  to  be  formed,  or  called  together.  Pool,  in 
his  Synopsis,  quotes  Estius  thus  describing  the  composi- 
tion of  this  court :  "  The  apostle  directs  the  calling  of  a 
public  assembly,  that  all  understanding  the  greatness  of 
the  crime,  might  acknowledge  the  justice  of  the  punish- 
ment. It  does  not  follow,  indeed,  from  this  place,  that  the 
multitude  have  the  power  of  excommunication,  yet  the 
multitude  in  some  sense  excommunicate,  namely,  by  their 
approbation  and  suffrage  in  favour  of  the  excommunication, 
and  by  avoiding  the  excommunicated  person.  The  minis- 
ter performed  the  act  of  excommunication  by  the  direc- 
tion of  St.  Paul."  Thus,  also,  Calvin  on  the  place  :  "  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  St.  Paul,  though  an  apostle,  did  not 
proceed  alone  to  excommunicate  according  to  his  own 
views  and  feelings,  but  he  consulted  with  the  church,  that 
the  thing  might  be  done  by  the  authority  of  all."  Bishop 
Fell  on  the  place,  says,  "  The  approbation  and  consent  of 
the  church  was  used  in  the  apostles^  time  in  ecclesiastical 
censures."  Erasmus,  also,  considers  the  matter  was  to 
be  done  in  "  a  public  assembly."  The  language  of  the 
chapter  is  decisive  in  proof  of  this.  Here,  then,  we  see  it  is 
not  "  very  clear,''  that  the  apostle  did  this  by  his  sole  autho- 
rity ;  indeed,  it  is  clear  he  did  not.  And  if  he  did  it  not  in 
the  case  of  a  private  member,  much  less,  we  presume,  did 
he  do  it  in  the  case  of  a  minister.  There  is  one  more  pas- 
sage which  I  leave  for  Mr.  Perceval  to  make  "  very  clear" 
as  evidence  that  the  apostle  could  at  any  time,  on  his  sole 
authority,  depose  ministers :  "  I  would  they  were  cut  off 
that  trouble  you,"  Gal.  v,  12.  If  the  apostle  wished  it, 
and  could  by  his  sole  power  do  this,  why  were  they  not  cut 
off?  See  Dr.  Barrow  on  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
supp.  5,  sec.  ii,  p.  187,  4to.  edit.,  1680. 

Mr.  Perceval's  charitable  supposition,  that  they  "  who 
carp  at  the  authority  of  bishops,  will  probably  not  be  de- 
terred from  carping  at  that  of  our  Lord  himself,"  shall  be 
illustrated  by  that  of  another  Oxford  Tract  advocate.  In  a 
work  styled  "  The  Oxford  Tracts,  the  Public  Press,  and 


316  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSIOT^. 

the  Evangelica.1  Party,"  by  G.  P.  (G.  Perceval  ?)  de  SanC' 
ta  Trinitate,  the  author  says,  "  The  evangelical  party  in 
the  Church  are  only  restrained  from  the  accident  of  their 
position  from  the  destructive  power  of  Rationalistic  and 
Socinian  principles :  the  spirit  is  already  there^  only  its 
full  development  is  restrained."  If  such  be  their  charity 
toward  their  brethren,  what  can  a  heathenish  Dissenting 
teacher  expect? 

Having  made  these  miscellaneous  remarks  on  things  for 
which  it  seemed  probable  we  should  find  no  nxwe  coDveni- 
ent  place,  we  now  proceed  to  a  more  regular  examination 
of  Mr.  Perceval's  Apology. 

He  begins  by  laying  it  down  as  a  fundamental  position, 
that  none  are  to  minister  in  holy  things,  "  in  the  name  of 
God,  without  express  warrant  and  commission  from  him, 
or  from  those  whom  he  has  impowered  to  grant  such  com- 
mission," p.  3^,  This  we  fully  concede.  But  when  he 
says  "  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  Christian  world"  hold 
this  to  be  by  "  episcopal  succession'^ — that  "  none  who 
have  not  received  episcopal  ordination  are  lawful  minis- 
ters of  the  church,  or  warranted  to  perform  any  acts  in  the 
name  and  with  the  authority  of  God,"  pp.  4  and  5,  we  deny 
it.  Even  Mr.  Perceval  shall  disprove  it.  At  pp.  7  and  8,. 
he  says,  the  power  of  presbyters  to  confer  orders  "  equally 
•with  bishops"  is  both  the  "  doctrine  and  practice  of  the 
Lutherans  in  Germany  and  Holland,  the  Presbyterians  in 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  and  North  America  ;  and 
the  Wesleyan  Methodists." 

Mr.  Perceval  has  the  confidence  to  assert  that  the 
Church  of  England  maintains  his  scheme,  page  9 ;  but  he 
that  reads  the  seventh  section  of  the  Essay  will  require 
something  more  than  assertion  on  this  subject. 

His  first  chapter  he  entitles  "  Congregationalism,"  and 
professes  to  examine  the  Scriptural  evidence  alleged  to 
support  it. 

He  has  amused  himself  with  imputing  to  the  Gongrega- 
tionalists  certain  Scriptural  precedents  as  "wr§-e<^  in  behalf 
of  Congregationalism,"  page  11.  I  believe  Mr.  Perceval 
is  conscious  that  the  Congregationalists  have  more  sense 
than  to  "urge"  any  such  things  as  he  mentions  "in  behalf" 
of  their  scheme.  He  himself  intends  the  introduction  of 
several  of  these  instances  as  a  caricature  of  Ccmgrega- 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        317 

tionalism.  But  what  honesty  is  there  in  such  a  misrepre- 
sentation of  facts  ?  However,  the  instance  of  Jeroboam 
will  find  its  best  parallel  in  the  conduct  of  Henry  VHI. 
The  case  of  the  seven  sons  of  Sceva  (Acts  x,  14)  would 
rather  belong  to  Mr.  Perceval,  as  they  were  sons  of  "  a 
chief  of  the  priests."  Probably,  as  being  in  the  succession, 
they  were  mortified  to  see  the  heretic  and  schismatic  Paul 
cast  out  devils,  and  supposed  that  surely  they  were  the  only 
divinely  commissioned  persons  for  such  a  work.  He  makes 
little  out  in  the  matter  of  Apollos  ;  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla. 
They  were,  indeed,  all  lay  persons  ;  Apollos  was  an  emi- 
nent lay  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  and  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
were  lay  "  fellow-helpers"  of  the  apostles.  Such  proceed- 
ings now  would  shock  our  high  priests.  On  the  case  of 
the  man  mentioned  Luke  ix,  50,  Mr.  Perceval  assumes 
that  he  who  opposes  the  succession  scheme,  opposes 
Christ.  An  easy  way  of  answering  difficulties,  to  beg  the 
question !  But  we  have  many  gentlemen  writers  now-a- 
days:  "dig  they  cannot;  and  to  beg,"  or  confess  the 
poverty  of  their  information,  "  they  are  ashamed." 

His  second  chapter  is  on  "  Ecclesiastical  authority  for 
Congregationalism."  It  contains  only  three  lines  and  a  half. 
"  From  ecclesiastical  antiquity,"  he  says,  "  I  am  not  aware 
that  a  single  precedent  is,  or  ever  has  been  alleged  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Independent  or  Congregational  scheme,"  This 
only  proves  how  little  Mr,  Perceval  knows  about  the  sub- 
jects on  which  he  writes.  There  is  abundant  evidence 
that  primitive  churches  consisted  of  only  one  congregation 
each.  It  was  against  the  rule  of  all  antiquity  for  one 
bishop  to  have  the  government  of  more  than  one  church 
or  congregation.  And  that  these  bishops  and  their  churches 
were  considered  to  be,  by  divine  right,  each  in  their  go- 
vernment independent  of  all  other  bishops  and  churches  in 
the  earliest  times,  is  too  evident  to  need  any  proof.  It  is 
maintained  by  Dr.  Barrow  on  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
that  "  the  ancients  did  assert  to  each  bishop  a  free,  abso- 
lute, independent  authority,  subjected  to  none,  directed  by 
none,  accountable  to  none  on  earth,  in  the  administra- 
tion of  affairs  properly  concerning  his  church,"  Suppos.  5, 
sec.  V,  page  220,  4to,  edit.,  1680.  Cyprian  maintains  it, 
as  Dr.  Barrow  there  shows :  and  see  Yitringa  de  Syn. 
Vet.,  lib.  3,  cap.  17,  p.  857,  &;c. :   Mosheim  de  Reb.  ante 


318  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

Constant.,  page  152,  and  Burnet's  Reformation,  vol.  ii, 
anno.  1559. 

Mr.  Perceval  entitles  his  third  chapter  "  Presbyterian- 
ism."  He  first  very  properly  takes  up  the  Scriptural  evi- 
dence, as  this,  and  this  alone,  can  decide  the  question. 
The  first  passage  he  selects  is  from  Numbers  xvi,  as  to 
"  Korah  and  his  company."  This,  indeed,  is  not  original ; 
most  high  Churchmen  exult  in  this  example  as  death  to 
presbyterianism.  It  is  an  old  saying,  that  a  man  may  make 
"  more  haste  than  good  speeds  The  breathless  haste  w^ith 
which  such  writers  appear  to  run  to  this  passage  for 
weapons  against  presbyterianism,  that  is,  every  thing  but 
high  Churchism,  may  possibly  be  the  reason  of  their  blind- 
ness when  they  arrive  at  it.  The  rebellion  of  "  Korah 
and  his  company"  is  analogous,  say  these  gentlemen,  "  to 
the  rebellion  of  presbyters  against  bishops." — Indeed ! 
Now  who  were  " Korah  and  his  company?"  Who  ? — Who  ? 
Yes,  Mr.  Perceval,  were  tbey  priests  or  laymen  ?  What 
does  this  mean — "  Seek  ye  the  priesthood  also  ?"  If  they 
were  priests,  how  could  they  seek  the  priesthood  ?  Dathan 
and  Abiram  were  Reubenites,  and  could  not  be  priests. 
They  none  of  them  were  priests  at  all !  Fie  !  fie  !  ye  queen's 
chaplains  and  Oxford  Tract-men,  to  trifle  thus  with  the 
public  mind  !  But  your  violation  of  truth  will  return  upon 
your  own  heads.  The  case  is  plain  enough,  it  was  the 
Levites  and  the  people  rebelling  against  the  priests  ;  and 
not  the  priests  against  the  high  priest. 

Mr.  Perceval  has  the  same  sort  of  egregious  trifling 
about  the  false  apostles  mentioned  2  Cor.  xi,  12  ;  and 
about  Diotrephes,  page  23.  He  professes  to  bring  these 
as  Scripture  grounds  for  presbyterianism.  Of  course  he 
would  insinuate  that  presbyterians  urge  them  as  such. 
However  censurable  this  conduct  may  be  in  itself,  yet 
possibly  it  may  be  excused  in  Mr.  Perceval.  He  can  be- 
lieve things  without  evidence :  why  should  he  not  go  a 
step  further  in  his  opinion  of  presbyterians,  as  he  calls  them, 
and  persuade  himself  that  they  are  foolish  enough  to  sup- 
pose that  an  argument  horn  false  apostles  and  the  ministers 
of  Satan,  will  be  good  grounds  for  presbyterian  ministers 
being  true  apostles  and  ministers  of  God  ! !  He  just  refers 
to  the  angels  of  the  Apocalypse.  He  does  not,  however, 
Heed  to  prove  that  these  angels  were  prototypes  of  high 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        319 

Church  bishops  :  his  authority  implying  this  is  enough,  and 
therefore  he  wisely  spares  all  proof — proofs  to  some  peo- 
ple are  troublesome  things. 

At  page  26,  the  subject  of  the  names  of  bishops  and 
presbyters  being  used  in  common,  is  introduced.  He 
acknowledges  they  were  so  "  at  the  first,  but  have  since 
been,  by  common  usage,  appropriated  to  distinct  offices." 
Very  well.  Are  we  then  to  correct  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles  by  common  usage  since  those  times?  "But," 
says  Mr.  Perceval,  "  our  Lord  himself  is  sometimes  desig- 
nated as  an  apostle,  1  Pet.  ii,  25  ;  sometimes  as  a  deacon, 
Rom.  XV,  8.  The  apostles  are  not  only  designated  by  that 
title,  Luke  vi,  13,  but  their  office  is  called  a  deaconship. 
Acts  i,  18,  25,  and  a  bishopric,  Acts  i,  20,  and  they 
themselves  frequently  styled  presbyters,  1  Peter  v,  1  ;  2 
.lohn  i ;  3  John  i ;  and  deacons,  1  Cor.  iii,  5  ;  2  Cor.  iii, 
6 ;  and  vi,  7.  Again,  the  pastors  at  Ephesus  whom  St. 
Paul  addresses  are  called  indiscriminately  bishops  and 
presbyters,  Acts  xx,  17  and  28,  and  the  same  indiscrimi- 
nate use  of  terms  is  observable  in  St.  Paul's  First  Epistle 
to  Timothy  and  in  that  to  Titus."  All  this  we  grant  is 
true  :  but  then  are  deacons  as  indiscriminately  called 
Christ  ? — are  deacons  as  indiscriminately  called  apostles 
as  presbyters  are  indiscriminately  called  bishops,  and  as 
bishops  are  indiscriminately  called  presbyters  ?  Mr.  Per- 
ceval knows  they  are  not.  Then  what  solemn  trifling  is 
all  this  !  The  reader  will  see  the  subject  further  treated  at 
pages  83—86  of  the  Essay.  The  names  thus  indiscrimi- 
nately common  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  inevitably 
proves  that  their  powers  were  common,  that  they  were  one 
and  the  same  office. 

The  following  is  the  best  piece  of  reasoning  in  the 
whole  book,  and  therefore  we  will  give  it  respectful  atten- 
tion. "  But,  say  the  presbyterians,  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians,  he  sends  salutation  to  the  bishops  and 
deacons,  Phil,  i,  2,  with  no  allusion  to  any  other  officer, 
therefore  there  were  only  these  two  instituted  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  any  thing  beyond  this  is  of  human  origin.  An- 
swer 1st.  So  do  the  prophets  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  and 
Ezekiel,  uniformly  designate  the  Jewish  ministry  as  priests 
and  Levites,  with  no  allusion  to  any  other  office  ;  and  a 
man  might  as  well  argue,  that  therefore,  at  that  time,  there 


320       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

was  no  superior  office,  no  high  priesthood  among  the  Jews, 
as  that  there  was  no  superior  office,  no  chief  episcopate, 
among  the  Christians  when  St.  Paul  ^^Tote,"  pp.  27,  28. 
The  reader  is  requested  first  to  turn  to  pages  50,  51,  52, 
69,  70,  and  80  of  the  Essay.  Besides  what  is  said  in  the 
above  pages,  especially  the  two  points  ;  first,  that  in  case 
of  the  pollution  of  the  high  priest,  a  common  priest  was 
appointed  to  officiate  for  him ;  and,  second,  that  all  the 
ordination  he  had  Avas  necessarily  by  common  priests ;  we 
further  remark,  that  the  above  argument  is  really  a  fallacy. 
The  fallacy  is  found  in  putting  a  •part  for  the  whole.  We  do 
not  build  our  argument  upon  any  one  passage  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  upon  the  whole:  we  say  that  there  is  no 
proof  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  not  that  there  are 
no  more  than  two  orders  of  ministers  of  the  gospel ;  for, 
by  the  New  Testament,  deacons,  as  such,  are  not  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel  at  all ;  but  we  say,  there  is  no  proof  in 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  of  more  than  one  stand- 
ing order  of  ministers  of  the  gospel.  To  make  the  argu- 
ment about  the  high  priest,  therefore,  a  just  one,  it  must 
be  assumed  that  there  is  no  allusion  in  the  ivhole  of  the 
Scriptures  to  any  other  office  than  that  of  priest  in  general. 
Let  this  be  done,  and  we  declare  that,  supposing  the 
premises  just,  the  conclusion  would  inevitably  follow,  that, 
by  divine  right,  there  was  no  really  and  essentially  distinct 
office  of  the  high  priest  above  that  of  the  priests  in  general. 
There  is,  however,  frequent  mention  of  the  high  priest  in 
other  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  though  not  by  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah, and  Ezekiel. 

What  Mr.  Perceval  says  about  the  prophets  so  uniformly 
neglecting,  with  very  few  exceptions,  to  make  any  men- 
tion of  the  high  priest,  as  distinguished  from  the  other 
priests,  is  well  worth  attention.  The  writer  has  no  quarrel 
with  episcopacy,  simply  as  such,  yet  the  following  particu- 
lars are  remarkable.  None  of  the  prophets  excepting 
Zechariah,  it  seems,  ever  mention  the  high  priest  distinct- 
ly. How  striking  the  difference  between  the  sacred 
writers  and  episcopalian  writers  !  In  the  word  of  God, 
we  have  a  series  of  inspired  writers,  addressing  both 
church  and  state  by  the  authority  of  God  for  centuries,  and 
yet  they  never  mention  the  high  priest,  but  only  as  included 
among  the  priests  and  Levites  ;  while  episcopalian  writers. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        321 

addressing  the  church  and  state,  seldom  mention  presby- 
ters and  deacons  at  all ;  but  bishops — ^bishops — bishops  ! 
No  episcopalian  dare  professedly  claim  a  higher  authority 
for  bishops  over  presbyters  than  what  they  suppose  the 
high  priest  had  over  the  other  priests  ;  yet,  in  very  deed, 
they  ciaim  ten  times  a  higher  authority.  Where  the  pro- 
phets mention  the  high  priest  once,  they  mention  bishops 
a  thousand  times.  When  the  high  priest  was  ceremonially 
incapable  of  duty,  a  common  priest  was  considered  capa- 
ble of  performing  it  for  him :  a  thing  impossible  for  a  pres- 
byter to  do  for  a  bishop,  according  to  high  Churchmen. 
The  consecration  of  the  high  priest  was  alioays  by  ordinary 
priests,  or  by  Moses,  who  was  no  priest  according  to  the 
law  ;  but  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  hy  presbyters^  a  thing 
which  the  reformers  maintained  to  be  lav^ful  by  the  word  of 
God,  our  high  Churchmen  consider  as  destroying  Chris- 
tianity itself!  Mr.  Peiceval  says  their  system  is  accused 
of  Judaizing  ;  but  the  reader  will  see,  that,  on  these  points, 
Judaism  was  mildness  itself  compared  with  such  a  system. 

His  observation  about  Timothy's  being  admitted  by  the 
apostles  to  their  own  order,  page  29,  is  completely.refuted 
in  sec.  iii,  sub-sec.  4,  of  the  Essay  :  we  refer  therefore  to 
that  place,  and  pass  on. 

Mr.  Perceval  tries  to  say  something  about  the  apostle 
Paul's  address  to  the  presb)i;ers  or  bishops  of  the  church 
of  Ephesus,  in  Acts  xx,  17,  &c.  His  opinion  is,  that  Ti- 
mothy was  with  Paul  at  the  time  ;  that  Paul  "  had  already 
committed  the  superintendence  of  these  very  pastors  to 
Timothy,"  and  that  having  Timothy  with  him,  Paul  gave 
"  this  pastoral  charge  to  the  pastors  at  [of]  Ephesus,  be- 
cause their  chief  pastor  Timothy"  was  with  him  on  his 
journey,  page  39.  All  this  is  mere  conjecture,  and  evi- 
dently contrary  to  the  scope  of  the  whole  address.  These 
presbyters  are  charged  to  take  heed  to  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers  or  bishops  : 
but,  according  to  Mr,  Perceval,  this  charge  ought  to  have 
been  given  to  Timothy  ;  and  Paul  should  have  taught 
these  presbyters  that  Timothy  was  the  bishop  to  whom  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  committed  the  government  of  the  flock, 
and  of  themselves  also ;  and  that  they  should  take  heed  to 
be  obedient  to  his  lordship  Timothy.  But  other  absurdi- 
ties follow  Mr.  Perceval's  interpretation.  First,  on  this 
14* 


322       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

scheme,  here  are  the  bishops  of  Ephesus  :  this  the 
sacred  penman  settles  beyond  dispute.  Secondly,  here  is 
Timothy,  a  bishop  of  bishops,  a  thing  utterly  repugnant  to 
the  first  ages  of  the  church :  so  Cyprian  and  eighty-six 
other  bishops  in  council  declare,  "  Neque  enim  quisquam 
nostrum  episcopum  se  esse  cpiscoporum  constituat — Neither 
does  any  one  among  us  constitute  himself  a  bishop  of  bish- 
ops.''^ They  account  it  tyranny  to  attempt  it.  Thirdly, 
here  is  an  apostle  making  another  grade  of  ministers. 
Now  high  Churchmen  contend  only  for  three  standing 
orders  in  the  church,  including  ajjostles  as  one,  and  deacons 
as  another.  However,  Mr.  Perceval  can  multiply  orders 
■with  a  dash  of  his  pen.  Here,  according  to  Mr.  Perceval, 
would  be,  first,  deacons  ;  second,  presbyters,  except  he 
fully  grants,  which  he  does  not,  that  bishops  and  presby- 
ters were  one  and  the  same  office  in  the  apostles'  days  ; 
third,  bishops  ;  fourth,  Timothy,  a  bishop  of  bishops  ;  and 
fifth,  apostles.  Five  standing  orders  of  ministers  of  the 
gospel ! 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  as  pleaded  by 
presb}4erians,  next  come  under  Mr.  Perceval's  examina- 
tion. His  first  argument  makes  Timothy  a  bishop  of 
bishops ;  the  absurdities  of  which  scheme  have  just  been 
exhibited. 

As  to  the  presbyters  who  ordained  Timothy,  all  he  has 
to  say  is,  that  commentators  of  the  fourth  and  following 
centuries  say  they  were  bishops.  We  say  so  too  ;  be- 
cause presbyters  and  bishops  were  then  one  and  the  same. 
But  suppose  they  were  bishops  of  a  high  Church  stamp, 
and  that  high  Church  bishops  are  their  successors  ;  then  it 
follows,  that  they  are  successors  of  Scripture  bishops  only, 
and  not  of  the  twelve  apostles.  But  this  conclusion  his 
more  initiated  brethren  would  tremble  to  hear  mentioned. 
However,  Chrysostom,  the  principal  commentator  on 
whom  he  depends,  says,  on  the  very  place,  "  the  difference 
between  the  presbyter  and  the  bishop  is  almost  nothing." 
Admit  the  utmost,  then,  that  they  say,  it  will  not  do  for  Mr. 
Perceval's  episcopacy.  But  we  do  not  admit  them  as 
authority  ;  we  admit  nothing  as  such  but  the  Scriptures  ; 
and  the  Scriptures  clearly  show  that  they  who  ordained 
Timothy  were  presbyters. 

"  Moreover,"  says  Mr.  Perceval,  "  in  the  Second  Epistle, 


I 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        323 

St.  Paul  ascribes  Timothy's  ordination  to  his  own  act,  2 
Tim.  i,  6.  The  presbyterians  [the  author  of  the  Essay- 
he  means]  would  represent  this  last  passage  to  relate  to 
miraculous  gifts  ;  but  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to 
warrant  such  a  supposition,  but  the  contrary,  it  cannot  be 
urged,"  pp.  33,  34.  The  passage  is,  "  Stir  up  the  gift  of 
God  which  is  in  thee  by  the  laying  on  of  my  hands." 
Now  an  English  reader  will  perhaps  be  surprised  to  hear 
it  said,  that  there  is  nothing  relating  to  miraculous  gifts  in 
a  passage  the  pith  of  which  is,  "  Stir  up  the  gift  of  God 
that  is  in  thee."  His  surprise  will  be  increased  when  he 
learns  that  the  word  "  gift"  in  this  passage  is  the  very  word 
Xagtafia,  which  the  sacred  writers  use  for  miraculous  gifts, 
in  1  Cor.  xii,  4,  9,  28,  30,  31.  The  phrase,  the  "  gift  of 
God,"  never  means  an  ojffice  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
expression  "  stir  up,^^  is  never  applied  to  an  office,  and 
seems  incapable  of  such  an  application.  Stir  up  thy 
bishopship,  thy  presbytership,  &c.,  would  be  strange 
phraseology.  All  these  objections  would  also  apply  to 
the  interpretation  which  would  suppose  the  gift  to  mean 
not  Timothy's  office,  but  his  ordination.  The  phrase,  "  the 
gift  of  God,"  never  means  ordination  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. To  say,  "  Stir  up  thine  ordination,"  is  as  absurd  as 
to  say,  "  Stir  up  thy  bishopship."  The  passage,  therefore, 
cannot  mean,  by  the  "  gift  of  God,"  either  Timothy's 
office,  or  his  ordination.  It  evidently  means  spiritual  gifts, 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Accordingly,  it  immediately 
follows — "  For  God  hath  not  given  unto  us  the  spirit  of 
fear  :  but  of  power,  SvvafieGjg,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound 
mind."  The  phrase,  the  "  Spirit  of  power — rrvevfia 
dvvaixewg,^^  most  properly  means  the  "  power"  of  miracles  ; 
as  the  word  dwafug,  when  referred  to  spiritual  matters, 
mostly  means  miraculous  power.  Chrysostom  thus  inter- 
prets the  phrase,  "  the  gift  of  God,"  that  is,  says  he,  "  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  thou  hast  received,  to  qualify 
thee  for  superintending  the  church,  for  working  miracles, 
and  for  the  whole  service  of  the  church."  We  have  shown 
in  the  Essay,  page  55,  that  the  gift  of  working  miracles  was 
conferred  by  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands,  as  a  pre- 
rogative of  their  apostleship.  Now  are  we  to  suppose  that 
these  gifts  were  conferred  in  this  manner  on  so  many 
inferior  individuals,  (as  the  Scriptures  show  they  were,) 


324       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

and  that  so  eminent  an  individual  as  Timothy  should  not 
be  favoured  with  them  ?  This  would  be  strange.  I  still 
think,  therefore,  that  the  peculiar  force  of  the  passage 
principally  refers  to  this  gift  of  God.  That  all  other  rich 
endowments  of  the  Spirit  for  the  ministry  would  accom- 
pany it,  we  need  no  more  doubt  than  that  others,  who  had 
these  miraculous  gifts,  were  also  favoured  with  rich 
endowments  of  the  Spirit  for  the  personal  performance  of 
every  Christian  duty.  Understanding  the  passage  in  this 
manner,  the  exhortation  has  great  beauty  and  force : 
"  Stir  up  the  gift  of  God  that  is  in  thee  by  the  laying  on  of 
my  hands," — I,  as  an  apostle,  having  been  honoured  as  the 
instrument  in  conferring  upon  thee  this  "  gift  of  God,"  these 
gifts  of  the  Spirit,  presume  I  may  use  some  authority  in 
exhorting  thee  to  exert  them  to  the  uttermost  in  governing 
the  flock,  in  miraculous  operations,  and  in  the  whole  ser- 
vice of  the  church. 

In  his  fourth  chapter,  Mr.  Perceval  proceeds  to  examine 
the  arguments  of  presbyterianism  from  ecclesiastical  an- 
tiquity. 

He  first  properly  notices  the  testimony  of  Clemens  Ro- 
manus.  In  answer  to  the  argument  from  the  fact  that 
Clemens  only  mentions  two  orders,  (suppose  we  count 
deacons  an  order,)  viz.,  bishops  and  deacons,  or  presbyters 
and  deacons,  he  refers  to  what  he  has  said  about  the  pro- 
phets only  speaking  of  priests  and  Levites,  with  no  mention 
of  the  high  priest ;  and  we  refer  to  the  answer  to  what  he 
has  there  said.  But  he  finds  it  convenient  to  pass  over  the 
fact  that  Clement  expressly  says,  that  the  sedition  in  the 
church  was  against  the  ^' presbyters,^''  sec.  47 ;  that  they 
were  "  presbyters"  who  had  "  the  rule  over  them,"  sec. 
54  ;  that  he  speaks  of  ^'' presbyters'^  as  having  finished 
THEIR  episcopacy,  sec.  44 ;  and  that  in  conclusion  he  ex- 
horts the  church  to  "  be  subject  to  their  presbyters," 
sec.  57.     He  never  says  half  so  much  about  bishops. 

Clemens,  indeed,  does  occasionally  use  the  word  bishop, 
as  synonymous  with  presbyter,  for  he  never  uses  them  to- 
gether and  distinctly ;  but  all  his  authority  and  exhorta- 
tion are  applied  to  bring  the  church  to  submit  to  the  go- 
vernment of  the  presbyters.  All  these  points  Mr.  Perceval 
forgets.  However,  like  a  drowning  man,  he  catches  at  a 
straw.     He  says,  "  The  unsoundness  of  the  presbyterian 


A 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        325 

inference,"  from  Clemens  in  favour  of  presbyterianism, 
"  is  beyond  redemption,  when  we  find  St.  Clemens  ex- 
pressly ascribing  to  divine  appointment,  obligatory  in  his 
time,  the  triple  order  of  the  ministry.  These  are  his 
words  :  '  It  will  behoove  us,  looking  into  the  depths  of 
divine  knowledge,  to  do  all  things  in  order  whatsoever  our 
Lord  has  commanded  us  to  do.  He  has  ordained,  by  his 
supreme  will  and  authority,  both  where  and  by  vjhat  persons 
they  [the  sacred  services  and  oblations]  are  to  be  perform- 
ed. For  the  chief  priest  has  his  proper  services  ;  and 
to  the  PRIESTS  their  proper  place  is  appointed  ;  and  to  the 
Levites  appertain  their  proper  ministries  :  and  the  lay- 
man is  confined  within  the  bounds  of  what  is  commanded 
to  laymen,'  "  page  38.  Here  he  leaves  the  passage,  as 
though  it  proved  his  point  without  a  doubt.  I  was  per- 
fectly aware  of  the  passage  when  I  wrote  the  Essay,  but 
thought  it  too  trifling  to  occupy  space  and  attention ; 
except  one  wished  for  materials  to  make  up  a  book.  But 
Mr.  Perceval  should  have  gone  on.  Clemens  proceeds  : 
"  Let  every  one  of  you  therefore,  brethren,  bless  God  in 
his  proper  station,  with  a  good  conscience,  and  with  all 
gravity,  not  exceeding  the  rule  of  his  service  that  is  ap- 
pointed to  him.  The  daily  sacrifices  are  not  ofTered  every- 
where ;  nor  the  peace  offerings,  nor  the  sacrifices  appoint- 
ed FOR  sins  and  transgressions  ;  but  only  at  Jerusalem — ■ 
they,  therefore,  who  do  any  thing  which  is  not  agreeable 
to  his  will,  are  punished  with  death.  Consider,  brethren, 
that  by  how  much  the  better  the  knowledge  God  has  vouch- 
safed unto  us,  by  so  much  the  greater  danger  are  we  ex- 
posed to."  Now  Mr.  Perceval  considers,  that,  because 
Clemens  says,  the  Lord  appointed  the  Jews  a  high  priest, 
priests  and  Levites,  this  proves  that  we  are  to  have  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons.  But  Clemens  also  says,  that  the  Jew- 
ish church  had,  by  divine  appointment,  ^^  daily  sacrifices, 
peace  offerings,  and  sacrifices  for  slns  and  trangressionsP 
By  his  argument,  therel'ore,  we  must  have  "  daily  sacri- 
fices, peace  offerings,  and  sacrifices  for  sins  and  transgres- 
sions." It  will  not  do  to  say,  that  spiritually  we  must; 
for,  spiritually,  all  God's  people  are  a  royal  priesthood, 
a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable 
to  God  by  Jesus  Christ.  1  Peter  ii,  5,  9.  Therefore  lite- 
rally  and  really,  without  a  figure,  on  his  principles,  we  must 


326       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

have  daily  sacrifices,  &c.  This  is  absurd :  his  argumeof, 
therefore,  proves  nothing.  The  simple  meaning  of  Cle- 
mens is,  that  Christians  are  to  follow  God's  rule  for  them- 
selves under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  the  Jews  were 
to  follow  God's  rule  for  themselves  under  the  Mosaical 
dispensation.  What  this  rule  for  Christians  is,  he  goes 
on  to  explain  in  the  following  sections  ;  and  clearly  shows 
that  God  had  appointed  "presbyters  to  be  over  the  church, 
to  RULE  it,  and  that  the  people  were  to  be  subject  to  the 
presbyters." 

In  the  very  Epistle  to  Evagrius  in  which  Jerome  expli- 
citly declares  bishops  and  presbyters  to  be  the  same,  he 
mentions  the  chief  priest,  priests  and  Levites,  and  laymen, 
as  Clemens  does.  Grotius  says,  "  Clemens's  statement 
about  the  high  priest,  Levites,  and  laymen,  does  not  per- 
tain to  the  Christian  church,  but  to  the  temple  at  Jerusa- 
lem ;  whence  he  infers,  that  as  all  things  were  to  be  done 
in  a  certain  order  by  the  Jews,  much  more  should  all  things 
be  done  with  decency  and  order  among  Christians."  Grotii 
Epistol.,  p.  347,  fol.    Amstel.,  1687. 

Mr.  Perceval,  p.  38,  &c.,  tries  his  skill  on  the  case  of 
the  church  of  Alexandria,  where,  Jerome  testifies,  the  pres- 
byters made  the  bishops  for  about  two  hundred  years  :  see 
the  Essay,  pp.  130-1 33.  Archbishop  Usher  and  Stillingfleet 
both  understood  Jerome  as  there  explained.  Mr.  Perce- 
val says  nothing  on  the  subject  of  Jerome's  statement  that 
invalidates  its  testimony  to  the  equality,  by  divine  right,  of 
bishops  and  presbyters.  However,  he  makes  an  unusual 
stir  about  Eutychius.  There  may  be  some  skill  in  this 
proceeding.  Jerome  was  an  untractable  fellow,  bearing  a 
blunt,  stubborn  testimony  against  Mr.  Perceval's  scheme  ; 
so  he  dismisses  him  as  quickly  as  he  can,  since  he  can 
make  nothing  of  him.  Eutychius  seemed  a  little  more 
manageable  ;  he  lived  in  a  darker  age  ;  his  writings  are 
incomparably  less  known  and  esteemed  than  Jerome's  :  so 
in  this  case  it  is  easier  to  raise  a  dust  about  nothing. 
Now,  in  the  first  place,  no  stress  was  laid  on  Eutychius's 
authority  in  the  Essay.  It  Avas  only  said  that  Stillingfleet 
had  quoted  him  to  prove  the  truth  of  Jerome's  statement. 
The  learned  Selden  had  urged  his  authority  for  the  same 
end.  "  But,"  says  Mr.  Perceval,  "  Abraham  Echellensis 
has  proved  that  Eutychius  has  been  misunderstood."    Now 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        327 

what  does  the  authority  of  Abraham  Echellensis  weigh 
against  the  authority  of  these  profound  scholars  ?  "  This 
Abraham  Echellensis,"  says  the  biographer  of  Selden, 
was  "  a  Maronite  priest,  in  the  pay  of  the  Roman  pontiff; 
and  he  employed  so  much  personal  abuse  in  an  attempt  to 
refute  Selden,  that  he  injured  his  own  reputation  more 
than  that  of  him  whom  he  attacked."*  Mr.  PerceA^al 
speaks  of  the  apostolical  canons  as  evidence  against  Je- 
rome's statement  about  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  mak- 
ing the  bishop  ;  he  forgets,  however,  to  prove  that  these 
canons  existed  dX  xhe  time  to  which  Jerome  refers.  There 
is  no  sufficient  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  canon,  to  which 
he  appeals,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years  after  Christ ; 
nor  perhaps  for  five  hundred  years  after  Christ :  but  this 
is  no  great  difficulty  with  Mr.  Perceval.  He  refers  to  the 
question  of  the  ordination  of  Ischyras,  but  this  was  about 
one  hundred  years  after  the  latest  time  of  which  Jerome 
speaks.  Mr.  Perceval  says  the  council  connected  with 
the  matter  "  denied  the  power"  of  a  presbyter  to  ordain. 
When  he  oflfers  proof  of  this,  it  will  be  time  enough  to 
examine  it.  We  deny  that  the  council  made  this  de- 
claration. It  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  place  of  Athanasius 
to  which  he  refers.  Councils  pronounced  ordinations  null 
for  "  a  bare  contempt  of  ecclesiastical  canons.  This  ordi- 
nation was  done  out  of  the  diocess,  in  which  case  ordina- 
tions are  nulled  by  council,"  Arel.,  c.  13  :  see  Stillingfleet's 
Irenicum,  p.  381,  &c.  Presbyterians  do  not  depend  on 
the  case  of  Ischyras  to  help  their  cause  ;  and  Mr.  Perce- 
val cannot  prove  it  injures  it. 

The  next  authority  for  presbyterianism,  which  Mr. 
Perceval  examines,  is  that  of  Columba  and  his  fellows,  in 
lona,  &c.,  as  mentioned  by  Bede,  and  brought  forward  in 
the  Essay,  section  xi.  The  purport  of  his  first  remark  is, 
that  as  Bede  mentions  bishops  under  the  authority  of 
Columba,  who  was  no  bishop,  but  a  presbyter,  it  would  be 
want  of  sense  to  suppose  there  was  "  no  such  thing'"'  as 
episcopacy  among  his  followers,  p.  45.  So  we  think  too  ; 
but  we  think  it  would  equally  display  want  of  sense  to 
suppose  that  that  which  might  be  called  episcopacy  among 
them,  was  at  all  like  high  Church  episcopacy.  As  epis- 
copacy, it  seems  to  have  greatly  resembled  Lutheran  epis- 
*  Memoirs  of  Selden,  by  W.  G.  Johnson,  London,  p.  288,  8vo.,  1835. 


328       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

copacy,  where  Luther,  the  p-eshyter^  ordained  their  first 
bishop.  It  is  doubtless  convenient  to  Mr.  Perceval  to  con- 
found the  different  kinds  of  episcopacy;  (1.)  the  Scrip- 
tural episcopacy,  in  which  bishops  and  presbyters  were 
the  same;  (2.)  Lutheran  superintendency  or  episcopacy ; 
(3.)  the  episcopacy  of  the  English  reformers  ;  and,  (4.) 
high  Church  episcopacy.  But  such  discourse  confounds 
every  thing,  and  settles  nothing.  He  says,  moreover, 
that  "  we  know  from  a  letter  of  Pope  John,  in  Bede,  that 
there  were  five  bishops  in  Scotland  at  that  time,"  p.  46. 
It  seems  Mr.  Perceval  does  not  know  that  Scotland  then 
meant  Ireland.  He  should  read  Archbishop  Usher,  to 
whom  he  there  refers.  He  could  not  have  made  this  mis- 
take, if  he  had  ever  read  that  work  of  the  archbishop's — 
De  Primodiis. 

"  But,"  says  he,  "  the  superiority  of  the  abbot  of  lona 
over  the  bishops  of  his  house,  turns  out  to  be  of  the  same 
nature  with  that  which  the  dean  of  Westminster  exercises 
over  the  bishop  of  Gloucester,  one  of  the  prebendaries  of 
that  chapter  ;  or  which  the  dean  of  Exeter,  as  such,  exer- 
cises over  his  own  diocesan,  as  treasurer  of  that  chap- 
ter," p.  47.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  Bede  does  not  only 
say  that  all  the  bishops  of  '■'■his  house'''  were  subject  to  the 
presbyter  abbot;  but  that  this  house  was  the  head  "of 
all  the  houses  both  in  Britanie,  and  also  in  Ireland  ;  and 
that  to  this  presbyter  abbot,  always,  both  the  whole  coun- 
trey,  and  also  the  bishops  thejnselves^  ought,  after  a  strange 
and  unaccustomed  order,  to  be  subject."  Dr.  Stapleton's 
translation.  But,  let  us  examine  these  cases  of  the 
bishop  of  Gloucester  being,  as  "  prebendary  of  Westmin- 
ster, subject  to  the  chapter,"  &c.  Is  it  "  a  strange  and 
unaccustomed''''  thing  for  a  prebendary  to  be  subject  to  the 
chapter  of  that  cathedral  to  which  his  prebend  belongs  ? 
and  for  a  dean  to  have  authority  over  the  treasurer,  "  as 
treasurer,"  of  the  chapter  of  which  the  dean  is  the  head  ? 
Would  a  historian  sagely  report  that  as  a  strange  and 
unaccustomed  thing,  when  every  body  knows  that  it  is  the 
universal  custom  ?  And  it  is  a  mere  fallacy  to  say  the 
bishop  is  subject,  when  they  mean  the  prebendary,  or  the 
treasurer,  "  as  the  treasurer, ^^  is  subject.  Let  the  reader 
again  peruse  Bede's  statement,  and  he  will  see  that  his 
meaning   clearly  is,  that  the  bishops,  as   bishops,  were 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       329 

*'  always"  subject  to  the  presbyter  abbot.  That  all  these 
bishops  had  only  presbyterian  ordination  is  shown  in  the 
Essay,  section  xii. 

The  case  of  the  Waldenses,  as  favouring  presbyterian- 
ism,  he  yields  up  to  our  argument,  so  far  as  to  grant  that  any 
other  view  does  "  not  admit  of  a  plain  and  easy  refutation," 
p.  47.  He  says  it  is  "  certain  they  are  now  presbyterians." 
If  they  are  now  presbyterians,  they  always  were  so  :  all 
the  evidence  establishes  this  conclusion. 

The  only  remaining  matter  worth  attention  in  this  chap- 
ter, is,  his  assertion,  that  Jerome  "  denies  to  presbyters 
the  power  of  ordination  :"  easily  asserted,  but  never  to  be 
proved  :  see  the  Essay,  section  vi. 

The  fifth  chapter  pretends  to  prove  the  presbyterian 
scheme  "  suicidal."  The  argument  he  uses  is,  that  sup- 
pose presbyters,  as  bishops,  after  the  apostles'  times, 
ordained  others  to  be  ministers  of  the  gospel,  that  is,  pres- 
byters in  the  church,  and  did  not  commit  to  them  the 
power  of  ordaining  ;  then,  these  last  had  no  divine  right. 
to  ordain.  This  is  an  easy  supposition  with  Mr.  Perceval 
and  his  friends,  viz.,  that  man  can  alter  God's  institutions. 
It  is  the  essence  of  Poper)^  We  say,  "  What  God  hath 
joined  together,"  no  man,  by  human  authority,  "  can  put 
asunder :"  but  God  hath  joined  the  power  of  ordination 
with  the  office  of  a  presbyter :  no  man,  therefore,  can  by 
human  authority  put  them  asunder.  Bishops  or  presbyters 
who  ordain  presbyters  have  no  power  to  luithhold  an  iota 
of  divine  right  from  the  office.  Presbyters,  therefore,  have 
still  a  divine  right  to  ordain. 

Here  he  finishes  his  answer  to  the  arguments  for  what  he 
pleases  to  denominate  presbyterianism  ;  that  is,  for  all  that 
is  not  high  Church  episcopacy.  And  this  writer,  who 
cannot  distinguish  priests  from  Levites  and  laynien,  in  the 
case  of  "  Korah  and  his  company ;"  who  knows  not  the 
difference  in  argument  between  the  whole  and  a  part ;  who 
makes  Timothy  a  bishop  of  bishops,  B,r\dfve  orders  of  thin- 
isters  of  the  gospel ;  who  can  quote  apostolical  canons  as 
evidence  at  a  time  when  he  cannot  prove  they  were  in 
existence  ;  whose  suppositions  make  Bede  incapable  of 
writing  common  sense  ;  who  quotes  works  which  he  had 
never  examined  on  the  subject  for  which  he  quotes  them, 
as  Usher's  Primordia ;  who  never  meets  fairly  one  single 


330        ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

argument  of  the  Essay : — this  is  the  writer  who,  as  Dr. 
Hook's  CHOSEN  CHAMPiOxV,  has  given  "  a  complete  answer''' 
to  the  "  Essay  on  ApostoUcal  Succession ! !" 

Well,  but  having  vanquished  the  presbyterians,  Mr. 
Perceval's  way  is  clear,  he  supposes,  to  display  irresistible 
evidence  for  high  Church  episcopacy ;  and  his  first  won- 
derful axiom  is  this—"  I  will  commence,"  says  he,  "  the 
episcopalian  section  by  showing,  that  its  utter  failure 
to  make  good  its  claim  to  a  divine  origin,  will  not  avail  to 
clear  the  presbyterians  of  guilt,"  p.  57.  Well  done,  Mr. 
Perceval !  It  is  wise  for  a  person,  who  is  conscious  of 
an  '-'■  utter  failure^'  to  proAdde  for  the  case.  They  say  it 
requires  as  much  generalship  to  conduct  a  good  retreat,  as 
it  does  to  gain  a  victory.  But  then  there  is  an  old  book 
which  true  Protestants  hold  as  the  only  and  sufficient  rule 
of  faith,  which  says,  "  Where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no 
transgression  ;"  that  "  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no 
law  :"  but  Mr.  Perceval  can  prove  that  where  there  is  an 
"  utter  failure"  to  make  good  a  divine  law,  yet  there  is 
guilt.  And,  what  is  the  best  of  all,  he  says,  "  Mr.  Powell, 
the  latest  writer  on  the  other  side,  and  John  Calvin,  both 
say  the  same.  Mr.  Powell,  speaking  of  a  passage  of  St. 
Ignatius,  says,  that  it  '  signifies  that  where  a  superintendent 
had  been  appointed  for  the  sake  of  order,'  (by  human 
authority,  as  a  human  arrangement,  by  custom,  &c.,  these 
expressions  occur  in  almost  every  page  of  the  Essay,) 
'  that  order  ought  to  be  kept ;'  and  then  adds,  '  Very  right : 
so  say  all  churches  Avhere  a  superintendency  has  been 
established,  though  making  no  pretensions  to  divine  right 
for  it.' "  Mr.  Perceval  quotes  another  passage  from  the 
Essay,  which  says,  that  "  w^hen  ministers  violate  the  law 
of  their  commission,  their  authority  so  far  ceases,  and  the 
people  are  in  that  proportion  free  from  obligation  to  obey 
them."  "  Whether,  therefore,"  says  Mr.  Perceval,  "  the 
origin  of  episcopacy  be  divine  or  human,  yet  this  is  clear 
from  the  above  ;  namely,  that  seeing  the  British  churches 
were  and  are  actually"  (by  a  human  arrangement,  says  Mr. 
Powell)  "  governed  by  bishops,  the  presbyterians  can  no 
otherwise  avoid  the  condemnation  of  heresy — nor  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Powell  of  open  violation  of  the  written 
law  of  God  against  those  who  break  that  established  order, 
than  by  proving  that  the  British  bishops  either  are  not 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        331 

truly  Christian  bishops,  or  have  violated  the  law  of  their 
commission ;  a  totally  different  question  from  that  under 
consideration."  Marvellous  reasoning !  Mr.  Powell  says 
that  the  episcopacy  of  the  English  Church  is  a  human 
arrangement,  for  the  sake  of  order ;  therefore  Mr.  Perceval 
says,  that  he,  Mr.  Powell,  proves  that  the  violation  of  this 
human  arrangement  is  the  violation  of  the  "  written  law  of 
God."  Again,  Mr.  Powell  says,  that  the  British  bishops 
never  had  a  divine  commission  for  that  established  order 
— that  it  is  established  by  nothing  but  the  authority  of  the 
sovereign,  and  the  ratification  of  the  English  parliament. 
Yet  Mr.  Perceval  states,  that  Mr.  Powell  makes  it  clear 
that  it  is  heresy  not  to  submit  to  it !  Mr,  Powell  is  an 
extraordinary  man  to  be  able  to  prove  that  a  thing  is  divine 
because  it  is  human  ;  and  that  heresy  is  the  breach  of 
human  regulations ! 

Mr.  Perceval  then  meets  the  objections  of  uncharitable' 
ness,  exclusiveness,  <^c.,  and  finds  out  that  these  are  recom- 
mendations of  his  system — proofs  that  it  is  divine ! !  see 
pages  61  and  62.  Then  he  comes  to  the  objection  of  the 
Popery  of  this  high  Church  scheme.  He  says  this  objec- 
tion "  is  an  old  device  of  the  Papists,"  p.  64 ;  and  tells  a 
tale  of  "  one  Cummin,  a  friar,  who  contrived  to  be  taken 
into  the  Puritans'  pulpits,"  &c.  "  The  pope,"  he  says, 
"  commended  him,  and  gave  him  a  reward  of  two  thousand 
ducats  for  his  good  behaviour."  The  practices  of  Popery 
are  bad  enough,  I  have  no  doubt,  for  all  this :  still  Mr, 
Perceval  is  unfortunate  in  his  example.  Dr.  Wells  ob- 
jected this  case  of  Cummins  against  the  Dissenters  above 
a  hundred  years  ago.  His  talented  and  learned  answerer, 
Mr.  Pierce,  referred  him  to  Dr.  Collins's  Answer  to  Dr. 
Scott's  Case  of  Forms  of  Prayer,  for  proof  that  "  the  whole 
story  is  such  a  notorious  forgery,  that  no  man  can  lay  stress 
upon  it,  without  exposing  the  reputation  of  his  judgment 
or  his  honesty."  Pierce's  Remarks  on  Dr.  Wells's  Letters, 
p.  15,  12mo.,  London,  1710.  And  in  Mr.  Pierce's  Vindi- 
cation of  the  Dissenters,  a  masterly  work,  part  ii,  chap,  i, 
he  tells  us,  that  "  Dr.  Wells  only  replied,  that  he  did  not 
before  know  of  any  such  writing,  and  never  attempted  to 
vindicate  those  foolish  forgeries."  A  good  example  for 
Mr.  Perceval. 

Mr.  Perceval  thinks,  that  because  Christ  has  an  eternal 


332       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

priesthood  in  heaven,  gospel  ministers  must  be  priests 
upon  earth.  When  he  shows  the  law  for  it,  we  shall 
believe  it.  But  Mr.  Perceval  belongs  to  a  party  who 
are  nearer  to  Popery  than  to  Protestantism.  He  is 
consistent,  therefore,  in  wishing  to  establish  a  priest- 
hood upon  earth,  "  daily  sacrifices,  offerings  for  sin," 
&c.  He  quotes  our  Lord's  sayings  to  his  apostles  and 
disciples  about  not  being  "  called  masters,"  as  though  we 
urged  these  sayings  against  "  all  claims  on  the  part  of  the 
Christian  ministry  to  authority  and  degree."  Mr.  Perce- 
val is  expert  at  answering  objections  which  were  never 
made.  We  never  urged  his  sayings  for  any  such  purpose. 
He  is  right  (p.  70)  in  saying  "  that  the  only  way  author- 
ized by  Christ  to  dignity  and  exaltation  in  his  church,  is, 
by  discharging  the  offices  of  the  ministry,  and  thus  serving 
the  people :"  therefore  it  follows  that  episcopal  consecra- 
tions, &c.,  are  matters  of  ceremony,  and  not  essential. 

To  the  objection  made  in  the  Essay,  that  the  high 
Church  doctrine  "  was  unknown  to,  or  unnoticed  by,  our 
Protestant  forefathers,  [that  is,  the  divines  who  in  the 
sixteenth  century  opposed  the  Church  of  Rome,]  and 
therefore  we  Protestants  need  not  concern  ourselves  about 
it,"  pp.  71,  72 ;  he  properly  replies,  "  The  divines  of  the 
sixteenth  century  were  neither  the  founders  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  nor  the  writers  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  and, 
therefore,  neither  the  Scriptures  nor  the  Church  are  to  be 
tried  by  them,  but  they  and  their  doctrines  are  to  be  tried 
by  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  and  by  the  voice  of  the 
Church,"  That  the  reformers'  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine 
of  all  uninspired  teachers  is  to  be  tried  by  the  Scriptures, 
and  not  the  Scriptures  by  their  doctrine,  we  glory  to  main- 
tain, as  the  great  distinguishing  principle  of  Protestantism, 
in  opposition  to  all  Popery  and  semi-popery.  But  the 
reader  must  not  suppose  that  Mr.  Perceval  and  his  party 
maintain  it;  they  hate  it  with  a  perfect  hatred.  The 
"  voice  of  the  church," — the  voice  of  the  church  !  Here 
is  their  hiding  place  and  their  glory.  However,  should 
the  reader  wish  to  know  what  is  meant  by  "  the  voice  of 
the  church,"  he  might  as  soon  expect  to  know  where 
infallibility  resides  in  the  Popish  Church,  as  to  know  what 
these  persons  mean  by  "  the  voice  of  the  church,"  and 
where  he  is  to  find  it.     The  best  illustration  of  the  case, 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.      333 

that  strikes  me,  is  the  reported  conversation  said  to  have 
taken  place  between  two  distinguished  statesmen  on  the 
subject  of  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy.  "What  is  the  dif- 
ference between  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy  ?"  said  one  to 
the  other.  "Orthodoxy,"  the  reply  was,  "is  my  doxy, 
and  heterodoxy  is  your  doxy."  Ask  Mr.  Perceval,  or  any 
Papist  or  semi-papist,  what  is  "the  voice  of  the  church?" 
the  answer  would  substantially  be,  "  That  is  the  voice  of 
the  church  which  says  as  ice  say ;  and  all  which  the 
fathers  say  contrary  to  this,  we  explain  away  either  as 
heresy,  particular  opinion,  or  not  of  faith."  There  is  no 
more  common  sophism  among  such  writers  than  this  play 
Tipon  the  term  church,  always  assuming  that  their  particu- 
lar party  is  the  "  catholic  church."  As  to  the  authority  of 
the  fathers.  Bishop  Taylor  himself  says, — "  It  is  not  hon- 
est for  either  side  to  press  the  authority  of  the  fathers,  as 
a  concluding  argument  in  matters  of  dispute,  unless  them- 
selves will  be  content  to  submit  in  all  things  to  the  testi- 
mony of  an  equal  number  of  them,  which  I  am  certain 
neither  side  will  do."*  Bishop  Jewel,  an  incomparably 
better  authority,  says, — "  There  is  no  way  so  easy  to 
beguile  the  simple,  as  the  name  and  countenance  of  the 
fathers."!  "  I  see  plainly,"  said  the  renowned  Chilling- 
worth,  "  and  with  mine  own  eyes,  that  there  are  popes 
against  popes,  councils  against  councils,  some  fathers  against 
others,  the  same  fathers  against  themselves,  a  consent  of  fa- 
thers of  one  age  against  the  consent  of  fathers  of  another  age, 
the  church  of  one  age  against  the  church  of  another  age. 
Traditive  interpretations  of  Scripture  are  pretended,  but 
there  are  few  or  none  to  be  found  :  no  tradition  but  anly 
of  Scripture  can  derive  itself  from  the  fountain,  but  may 
be  plainly  proved  either  to  have  been  brought  in  in  such 
an  age  after  Christ,  or  that  in  such  an  age  it  was  not  in. 
In  a  ivord,  there  is  no  su-fficiency  but  of  Scripture  only,  for 
any  considering  man  to  build  npon."|  But  these  high 
Churchmen  are  pretty  good  imitators  of  their  Popish  breth- 
ren, who,  above  all  things,  love  "  a  packed  juryT  When 
any  of  the  fathers  will  speak  for  them,  or  any  thing  like 
it,  they  parade  them  in  the  court  as  though  the  fathers 

*  Lib.  Prophesying,  sec.  viii. 

f  Preface  to  his  Reply  to  Harding. 

t  Chillingworth's  Religion  of  Protestants,  chap,  vii,  sec.  Ivi. 


334       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

were  infallible  :  they  will  even  bring  acknowledged  forge- 
ries into  court  as  true  witnesses  ;  as  Bellarinine  and  others 
have  done  with  the  Decretal  Epistles ;  but  if  the  fathers 
say  a  word  against  them,  they  kick  them  out  of  court  as 
individual  testimonies,  private  opinions,  not  of  faith,  and 
the  like.  Mr.  Perceval  and  his  party  smart  incurably 
under  the  correction  of  the  great  English  reformers.  Dr. 
Hook,  indeed,  has  the  boldness  to  assert,  that  by  the 
reformers  the  "  episcopal  succession  was  assumed  as  a 
necessary  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England ;"  and  that 
"  one  of  the  falsehoods  propagated  in  these  modern  days 
is,  that  the  reformers  did  not  hold  the  divine  right  of 
episcopacy :"  see  that  queer  thing,  "  A  Call  to  Union  on 
the  Principles  of  the  Reformation,  a  Visitation  Sermon,  by 
the  Rev.  W.  F.  Hook,  D.  D.,  price  3^.  6<^."  Appendix,  pp. 
140,  141.  "  The  principles  of  the  Church,"  says  he,  "  as 
we  have  seen,  form  an  i?i surmountable  barrier  between  us 
and  the  Dissenters,  and  render  union  with  those  parties 
IMPOSSIBLE,"  p.  41.  A  glorious  call  to  union  !  It  is  a  call, 
indeed,  to  Churchmen  to  unite  to  persecute  Dissenters  ;  that 
is,  all  who  presume  to  differ  from  these  lordly  priests. 
Did  the  reformers  proclaim  such  sentiments  to  Calvin,  to 
Peter  Martyr,  Bucer,  John  Knox,  &c.  ?  Let  the  reader 
carefully  examine  section  seventh  of  the  Essay,  for  a 
refutation  of  all  such  libels  on  the  reformers. 

Mr.  Perceval  comes  to  the  objection  that  "  there  is  no 
sufficient  historic  evidence  of  a  personal  succession  of 
valid  episcopal  ordinations  :"  we  have  noticed  his  reply 
before — see  the  place.  But  after  "  yielding  at  once"  that 
this  is  the  case,  he  thinks  that  "  if  it  be  a  moral  impossi- 
bility  that  any  man,  who  had  not  been  duly  consecrated, 
could  be  accounted  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England  at 
the  present  time,  then  the  onus  rests  upon  the  objectors  to 
say  how  that  which  is  morally  impossible  now,  could  have 
been  morally  possible  at  any  other  period,''  p.  89.  That 
is,  what  is  morally  impossible  now,  in  times  of  Girder,  is, 
according  to  Mr.  Perceval,  by  the  same  rule,  morally  im- 
possible in  times  of  confusion  :  that  what  is  morally  impos- 
sible in  the  light,  is,  by  the  same  rule,  morally  impossible 
in  the  dark !  Fine  reasoning !  But  facts  are  stubborn 
things.  And  though  it  is  a  mere  subterfuge  to  pretend 
that  the  onus  of  proof  lies  upon  us  ;  yet,  as  these  boasters 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       335 

of  the  proof  of  their  scheme  being  "  evident  to  every  one," 
were  charj"  of  their  production  of  that  evidence,  we  have 
done  what  our  argument  needed  not,  we  have  produced 
proofs  from  unexceptionable  testimony  against  the  validity 
of  the  episcopal  consecrations  through  which  these  men 
trace  their  succession.  Mr.  Perceval  has  invalidated  none 
of  them  :  see  sections  x  and  xiii  of  the  Essay.  Indeed  Mr. 
Perceval  himself  furnishes  us  with  proofs  of  the  same 
kind.  He  says,  at  p.  110  of  the  Appendix,  that  there  are 
"  many  instances  to  be  found  in  church  history  of  persons 
consecrated  to  the  episcopate  from  the  laity."  Now  we 
shall  be  glad  to  see  Mr.  Perceval  prove  that  these  were 
"  duly  consecrated  bishops."  On  his  principles  he  never 
can.  On  Scriptural  principles,  which  admit  that  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  one  and  the  same  office,  there  is  no 
difficulty ;  but  then  this  cannot  help  Mr.  Perceval,  as  he 
rejects  these  principles.  Mr.  Perceval's  "  moral  impossi- 
bility," therefore,  is  contradicted  by  plain /ac^.?,  and,  on 
his  own  showing,  "  many  instances  are  to  be  found  in 
church  history  of  persons"  not  "  duly  consecrated  to  the 
episcopate."  For  "  a  bishop  oxdidlnedi  per  saltum"  that  is, 
"  that  never  had  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter,  can  neither 
consecrate  and  administer  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
body,  nor  ordaine  a  presbyter."*  Historic  evidence 
failing,  and  moral  impossibility  failing,  we  see  something 
of  the  "  utter  failure'^  for  which  Mr.  Perceval  ominously 
provided. 

He  thinks,  p.  82,  that  the  fact  of  the  contradictions  of 
history  about  the  succession  of  the  first  ministers  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  of  no  importance  ;  it  is  enough,  he  sup- 
poses, that  the  church  was  then  governed  by  bishops  :  but 
what  kind  of  bishops  ?  Irenaeus  addresses  them  by  the 
title  of  "  presbyters ;"  Clement,  who  is  supposed  to  have 
been  one  of  them,  writing  to  the  church  of  Corinth,  knows 
nothing  about  any  bishop  but  what  was  identical  with,  and 
more  distinguished  by,  the  title  of  "  presbyter."  That,  in 
the  second  century,  the  chief  presbyter  acted  as  a  super- 
intendent by  the  consent  and  authority  of  the  other  pres- 
byters, may  be  granted  :  nothing  more  can  be  proved. 
But  what  will  this  episcopacy  do  for  Mr.  Perceval  and  his 
party  ?  Nothing ! 
*  Dr.  Field,  "  Of  the  Church,"  b.  iii,  chap,  xxxix,  p.  157,  fol.  ed.,  1635. 


336  ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION, 

As  a  ^^  forlorn  hope,^^  he  takes  to  the  case  of  Judas,  the 
traitor:  the  yeader  will  find  this  case  settled  to  Mr. 
Perceval's  satisfaction  at  pages  261,  262,  of  the  Essay. 

Mr.  Perceval,  having  cleared  his  system  of  the  objec- 
tions above  noticed,  as  exhibited  in  this  review,  now 
comes  to  display  the  full  glory  of  evidence  for  his  scheme 
of  episcopacy.  In  noticing  Congregationalism  and  presby- 
terianism,  his  method  was  to  place  what  he  represents  aa 
their  Scriptural  evidence  first ;  and  then,  in  the  second 
place,  the  ecclesiastical  evidence :  in  displaying  the  evi- 
dence for  episcopacy,  he  reverses  this  order,  and  places 
ecclesiastical  antiquity  first ;  and  then,  in  the  second  place, 
the  evidence  from  the  Scriptures.  This,  in  Mr.  Perceval, 
IS  consistent.  Thus  Papists  and  high  Churchmen  place 
the  word  of  God  under  the  authority,  subject  to  the  inter- 
pretation, of  what  they  call  the  Church.  However,  after 
all,  the  reader  who  may  not  have  the  privilege  of  seeing 
Mr.  Perceval's  Apology,  can  hardly  conceive  what  a  mea- 
gre, miserable  display,  he  makes  of  the  evidence  of  eccle- 
siastical antiquity.  A  few  trite  passages  from  the  fathers, 
Clemens  Romanus,  Ignatius,  &c.,  are  strung  together, 
without  hardly  a  single  line  to  prove  that  they  support  his 
scheme.  If  it  should  be  said  that  their  evidence  for  his 
scheme  is  so  clear  as  to  need  no  explanation,  we  believe 
many  of  those  who  have  candidly  read  the  Essay  will 
not  be  of  this  opinion.  A  complete  answer  to  that  work 
from  such  men  as  Dr.  Hook  and  his  party,  should  by 
all  means  have  answered  this  part  of  it.  But  no :  Mr. 
Perceval  is  afraid  of  "  tiring  his  readers''  patience^^  p.  96. 
Very  well :  Mr.  Perceval's  kindness  to  his  readers  may 
pass,  only  he  does  not  forget,  that  he  has  not  answered 
the  question. 

In  the  conclusion  of  this  chapter,  after  quoting  what  are 
called  the  apostolical  canons — a  number  of  canons  or 
regulations  collected  nobody  knows  when,  nor  by  whom 
— he  says  "  the  Nicene  council  universally  treats  of  bish- 
ops, and  bishops  only,  as  having  power  to  ordain."  That 
the  canons  of  the  Nicene  council  speak  only  about  bish- 
ops ordaining  bishops,  we  grant ;  but  if  Mr.  Perceval 
intends  his  reader  to  understand  that  that  council  gave  any 
decision  that  presbyters  had  not  power  to  ordain  presbyters, 
or  even  bishops,  he  misleads  his   reader:    that  council 


I 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       337 

made  no  such  decision.  Perhaps  the  reader  may  recollect 
that  the  Epistle  of  this  council  to  the  church  of  Alexan- 
dria was  quoted  section  vi,  of  the  Essay.  In  this  Epistle, 
the  council  speaks  of  certain  clergymen  who  "  should  have 
power  to  ordain,"  &c.  Some  reasoning  is  there  employed 
against  Valesius  to  prove  that  these  clergymen  were  pres- 
byters— he  supposing  that  they  were  bishops.  That  rea- 
soning is  established  as  correct  by  the  express  statement 
of  Athanasius,  0pp.,  vol.  i,  p.  732,  B.  C,  edit.  Paris,  1627. 
Here,  then,  this  point  of  the  power  of  presbyters  to  ordain 
is  established  by  the  council  of  Nice.  They  say  that 
these  presbyters  were  to  have,  that  is,  to  continue  to  have, 
power  to  ordain ;  which  ordaining  by  presbyters,  the 
Epistle  states,  was  "  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  law 
and  sanction."  So  much  for  the  council  of  Nice  treating 
"  of  bishops  only  having  power  to  ordain."  The  only  diffi- 
culty in  the  passage  is  in  the  rendering  of  the  word 
trgox^i'Qi'^ofiai.  It  sometimes  seems  to  mean  to  propose  for 
ordination,  or  to  elect :  this  I  admit.  But  then  it  also 
means  to  ordain ;  and,  what  is  important,  it  is  indisputably 
used  in  the  sense  of  ordaining  in  this  Epistle  only  a  few 
lines  before,  as  to  the  bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  two  acts 
of  ordaining  and  electing  are  several  times  spoken  of 
in  this  Epistle  in  varied  phraseology — e^ovoiav  e^eiv 
Xet-podereiv,  npox^t-pc^eadai — e^ovacav  7rpo%api^£(70af,  rj 
vno(3a?i?LeLv  ovoiiara — e^ovauav  exstv  irgox^igi^sadai,  icac 
ovoiiara  entXeyeGOai.  Here  it  will  be  noticed  that  ordi- 
nation is  always  spoken  of  first ;  and  invariably  as  the 
exercise  of  authority — e^ovatav ;  the  latter  clause  of  the 
two  referring  to  the  proposing  of  names,  or  electing.  This 
authority  of  ordaining,  is,  in  two  of  these  passages,  accom- 
panied by  the  word  we  have  rendered  to  ordain.  The 
application  of  it  to  ordaining  by  the  bishop  of  Alexandria 
is  indisputable.  These  presbyters,  then,  are  said  to  have 
e^ovatav  Trgox^LQiQ^odaL,  authority  or  power  to  ordain  ;  and 
this  "  according  to  ecclesiastical  law  and  sanction."  Such 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  legitimate  meaning  of  the  place. 
However,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  positive,  as  there  is  some 
ambiguity  in  the  language  of  the  Epistle.  But  I  am  posi- 
tive that  the  council  did  not  deny  the  power  of  presbyters 
to  ordain :  I  think  the  above  are  strong  reasons  to  believe 
that  their  Epistle  affirmed  it. 

15 


338       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

We  now  come  to  the  Scriptural  testimony  for  Mr.  Per- 
ceval's scheme  of  episcopacy.  But,  alas  !  for  Dr.  Hook, 
Mr.  Perceval,  and  their  party !  the  Scriptures  have  so 
little  to  help  their  case,  that  this  champion  of  their  cause 
occupied  very  nearly  as  much  of  his  work  with  Eutychius 
and  Abraham  Echellensis,  as  he  does  with  the  whole  of 
the  testimony  of  the  Scripture  in  behalf  of  their  system. 
But  it  is  better  to  be  silent  when  we  have  nothing  to  say. 
The  Scriptural  testimonies  which  he  produces,  are,  the 
angels  in  the  Apocalypse ;  the  case  of  Timothy  and 
Titus  ;  the  apostles'  superintendence  of  the  churches  which 
they  founded — which  nobody  ever  denied  ; — the  commis- 
sion of  our  Lord  to  his  apostles  : — these  are  the  principal, 
and  almost  the  only  instances,  which  he  notices  ;  but  as 
he  does  not  even  attempt  an  answer  to  that  part  of  the 
Essay  which  treats  on  these  passages,  we  have  a  right  to 
conclude  that  he  felt  it  to  be  unanswerable.  The  highest, 
the  supreme  evidence,  the  evidence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
against  this  high  Church  episcopacy,  remains,  therefore, 
in  all  its  integrity  and  completeness.  This  is  the  all- 
deciding  point. 

Speaking  of  the  exhortations  to  unity  to  be  found  in  our 
Lord's  discourses,  Mr.  Perceval  says,  p.  106,  "  Our  oppo- 
nents are  ever  fond  of  citing  those  passages  in  Tertullian, 
Jerome,  and  others,  which  affirm  that  episcopacy  was 
necessarily  instituted  for  the  preservation  of  unity.  But  if 
unity  be  a  necessary  end  in  the  church,  and  episcopacy 
the  necessary  means  for  attaining  that  end,  then  how  can 
the  inference  be  set  aside,  that  the  Lord  of  glory,  who  or- 
dained the  end,  must  himself  likewise  have  ordained  the 
means  necessary  for  attaining  that  end  ?"  This  statement 
is  incorrect :  those  passages  in  the  Essay  which  speak 
about  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  fathers  for  the  institu- 
tion of  episcopacy,  do  not  say  that  the  fathers  "  affirmed 
that  episcopacy  was  necessarily  instituted  for  the  promotion 
of  unity  ;"  but  only  that  their  opinion  was  that  it  was 
designed  to  promote  this  unity.  But  suppose  they  had 
affirmed  this  necessity  for  episcopacy  as  a  means  for  the 
promotion  of  unity,  still  the  argument  is  false :  both  the 
premises  are  false ;  the  conclusion,  therefore,  must  be 
false  also.     The  argument  in  full  is  as  follows : 

What  the  fathers  affirm  is  necessary  as  a  means  to  the 


ON  APOSTOLICAX  SUCCESSION.       339 

unity  of  the  church,  Christ  instituted  as  a  necessary  means 
to  the  unity  of  the  church  : 

But  the  fathers  affirm  that  episcopacy  is  a  necessary 
means  to  the  unity  of  the  church  :  therefore, 

Christ  instituted  episcopacy  as  a  necessary  means  to  the 
unity  of  the  church. 

In  the  first,  or  major  proposition,  Mr.  Perceval  legs  the 
question;  it  is  neither  proved  nor  granted:  it  is  false. 
The  next  step  with  this  argument  lands  us  in  full-grown 
Popery.  The  authorities  of  that  church  say,  that  a  uni- 
versal bishop  is  necessary  for  the  unity  of  the  church ; 
ergo,  Christ  instituted  a  universal  bishop — the  pope.  The 
second,  or  minor  proposition,  is  false  also,  in  Mr.  Perce- 
val's sense :  the  fathers  never  expressed  an  opinion,  nor 
affirmed  either,  that  the  kind  of  episcopacy  for  which  Mr. 
Perceval,  Dr.  Hook,  and  their  party,  contend,  was  neces- 
sary for  the  unity  of  the  church.  This  is  sufficiently 
shown  in  the  Essay.  The  premises  failing,  the  conclusion 
falls  to  the  ground. 

Mr.  Perceval  concludes  his  Apology  for  Apostolical 
Succession  with  a  long  Appendix,  employed  in  proving 
many  things  which  nobody  disputes.  This  no  doubt  was 
much  the  pleasantest  part  of  the  work  to  Mr.  Perceval. 

Here  we  conclude  this  Critique  on  Mr.  Perceval's  task, 
enjoined  by  his  friend  Dr.  Hook.  He  has  "  yielded'^  up 
the  cause  of  historical  evidence  ;  "  utterly  fails'^  to  prove 
a  divine  origin  of  their  system  ;  and  ineffectually  attempts 
an  answer  to  the  proofs  that  ecclesiastical  episcopacy  is  a 
mere  human  arrangement.  Such  is  this  complete  answer 
to  the  Essay  on  Apostolical  Succession,  by  this  chosen 
champion  of  Dr.  Hook !  The  reader  is  left  to  form  his 
own  judgment  upon  its  completeness. 


AN  APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING 

A  REYIEW    OF  DR.   HOOK'S   SERMON 
ON  «  HEAR  THE  CHURCH." 

PREACHED  BEFORE  THE  QUEENy  AT  THE  CHAPEL  ROYAL,  ET  ST.  JAMES'iS 
PALACE,  JUICE  17,  1838. 

Dr.  Hook  is  the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  the  high 
CJhurch  scheme  of  the  present  times.  If  assertions  were 
proofs,  his  writings  would  contain  convincing  evidence  of 
the  authority  of  his  mission.  I  doubt  his  assertions  ;  and 
I  controvert  his  scheme.  His  doctrine  of  the  succession 
has  been  sufficiently  refuted  in  the  preceding  Essay ;  in- 
deed, the  arguments  in  the  Essay  do,  in  their  consequence, 
demolish  his  whole  high  Church  building. 

But  there  is  one  topic  upon  which  he  evident^  delights 
to  dwell ;  for  he  speaks  and  preaches  it  everfiohere ;  it  is 
this — That  the  present  Church  of  England  was  founded 
by  the  apostles,  and  has  come  down  to  the  present  day, 
with  no  greater  difference,  at  any  time,  from  that  apostolic 
church,  than  the  difference  caused  in  the  same  man  by 
having  his  face  ivasked  or  unwashed ;  see  page  1 5  of  his 
sermon.  This  is  his  favourite  illustration.  Speaking  of 
the  Church  of  this  country  before  the  Reformation,  when 
sworn  to  Popery,  the  pope  acknowledged  a«  its  head  by 
all  its  authorities^  when  governed  by  bishops  who  preach- 
ed the  doctrines,  and  were  sworn  to  the  government  of 
Popery,  when  the  Church  itself  was  filled  with  idols  and 
abominations ;  with  perfect  and  full-grown  Popery, — and 
comparing  that  Church  with  the  Church  after  the  Refor- 
mationy  he  says,  "  The   Church   remained   the    same 

AFTER  IT  WAS  REFORMED  AS  IT  WAS  BEFORE,  _;W5i  aS  a  man 

remains  the  same  man  after  he  has  w&shed  his  face  as  he  was 
hefore"  page  12.  The  conclusions  he  draws  from  this 
argument,  are,  that  the  Church  of  England  "  maintains 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  341 

those  peculiar  doctrines  and  that  peculiar  discipline,  which 
have  ALWAYS  marked,  and  do  still  continue  to  mark,  the 
distinction  between  the  church  of  Christ,  administered 
under  the  superintendence  of  chief  pastors  or  bishops 
who  have  regularly  succeeded  to  the  apostles,  from  those 
sects  of  Christianity  which  exist  under  self-appointed 
teachers  ; — that  this  Church  is  the  only  church  of  Christ 
in  this  kingdom  : — that  it  possesses  its  original  endowments^ 
which  were  never,  as  ignorant  persons  foolishly  suppose, 
taken  from  one  church  and  given  to  another,"  page  12  ; — 
that  her  bishops  have  regularly  succeeded  to  the  apostles ; 
and  that  her  ministers  are  the  only  divinely  commissioned 
ministers  in  this  kingdom:    all  other  denominations  are 

SECTARIANS,   SCHISMATICS,  and  left  to  the  UNCOVENANTED 

mercies  of  God,  On  this  ground  he  has  the  intolerable 
arrogance  thus  to  insult  the  Christian  churches  in  general 
in  America  :  "  When  the  United  States  of  America 
were  English  colonies,  the  English  Church  was  there 
established :  at  the  revolution,  the  state  was  destroyed.* 
Monarchy  has  there  ceased  to  exist-,  but  the  Church, 
though  depressed  for  a  time,  remained  uninjured  :  so  that 
there — among  the  American  republicans — under  the  super- 
intendence of  no  fewer  than  sixteen  bishops,  you  will  find 
her  sacraments  and  ordinances  administered,  and  all  her 
ritual  and  liturgical  services  celebrated,  with  no  less  of  piety, 
zeal,  and  solemnity,  than  here  in  England ;  there  you  may 
see  the  Church,  like  an  oasis  in  the  desert,  blessed 
by  the  dews  of  heaven,  and  shedding  heavenly  blessings 
around  her,  in  a  land  where,  because  no  religion  is  esta- 

*  This  attack  upon  the  religious  bodies  of  the  United  States  he 
mixes  up  with  a  political  philippic.  The  writer  is  no  advocate  for  a 
republic  :  indeed,  he  leaves  politics  in  general  to  others.  Yet  there 
is  a,  sentiment,  on  the  page  adjoining  the  last  quotation,  which  de- 
serves remark.  The  doctor  says,  "  Were  all  connection  between  Church 
and  state  to  cease,  we  may  be  sure  the  monarchy  would  be  destroyed.'''* 
This  was  telling  the  queen  that  none  are  loyal  to  her,  as  the  queen,  ex- 
cept she  pays  them  for  it ;  and  the  same  to  kings  in  general.  Dr.  Hook, 
and  such  as  he,  may  speak  from  their  own  feelings,  as  to  what  they 
would  do  for  the  queen  if  not  paid  by  her  :  but  to  affirm  it  of  Chris- 
tians in  general,  is  a  vile  slander,  and  is  calculated  to  disaffect  the 
mind  of  the  queen  toward  all  her  Christian  subjects  who  are  not  of  the 
Establishment.  All  real  Christians  receive  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  their 
faith  and  practice.  From  the  Bible  they  learn  to  "  submit  to  the  powers 
that  be"  equally  as  much  under  a  monarchy  as  under  a  republic.     The 


342  ON  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION. 

blished,  if  it  were  not  for  her,  nothing  but  the  ex- 
tremes of  infidelity  or  fanaticism  would  prevail,"  pp.7, 8. 

The  reader  sees  at  once  that  this  is  the  succession 
scheme  a  little  modified.  That  scheme  has  been  suffi- 
ciently refuted  in  the  Essay.  We  intend  in  this  review 
of  the  sermon,  to  expose  the  sophistry  of  this  modification. 
Here,  "  the  Church"  is  the  topic  : — "bishops"  were  the 
former  topic. 

If  Dr.  Hook  be  the  man  he  is  said  to  be,  it  is  hard  to 
suppose  that  he  is  not  conscious  of  the  sophistry  of  his  own 
argument :  in  which  case  he  would  be  a  public  deceiver : 
if  his  reasoning  powers  be  weak,  he  may  possibly  be  en- 
tangled in  his  own  net.  Be  these  things  as  they  may,  his 
argument  is  a  tissue  of  sophistry : — we  shall  endeavour  to 
untwist  it,  and  break  its  force  of  deceiving. 

The  GREAT  fallacy  or  delusion  of  the  whole  argument 
lies  in  using  the  expression  "  the  Church"  in  different 
SENSES,  in  different  parts  of  the  argument ;  that  is,  as  lo- 
gicians would  say,  in  changing  the  terms. 

The  way  in  which  he  manages  this,  is,  by  giving  only 
a  general  and  imperfect  definition  of  the  terms  in  the  be- 
ginning of  his  sermon;  and  then,  wAxo^MOJiVLg particulars 
into  it  in  the  progress,  ?i,s  is  the  most  convenient  for  decep- 
tion. So,  at  pages  5  and  8,  he  says,  "  Now  at  the  very 
OUTSET,  I  must  state  that  I  refer  to  the  Church,  not  as  a 
mere  national  establishment  of  religion,  but  as  the  Church, 
a  religious  community,  intrinsically  independent  of  the 
state  ;  that  is  to  say,  I  am  about  to  treat  the  Church,  not 

Wesleyan  Methodists,  for  instance,  yield  not  to  the  members  of  the 
Establishment  in  loyalty  to  the  queen.  But  further —  Was  the  Chris- 
tian church  connected  with  the  state  for  the  first  three  hundred 
YEARS  1  Did  not  the  state  then  persecute  the  church  everywhere  1 
The  Roman  republic  had  ceased  to  be  when  the  Christian  church  began 
to  exist.     The  emperor  was  more  absolute  than  the  king  of  England. 

Now,  DID  THE  PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANS  RISE  TO  DESTROY  THE  THRONE  1 

Hear  TertulUan  :  "  In  all  our  prayers,  we  are  ever  mindful  of  all 
our  emperors  and  kings  wheresoever  we  live,  beseeching  God  for  every 
one  of  them  without  distinction,  that  he  would  bless  them  with  length 
of  days,  and  a  quiet  reign,  a  well-established  family,  a  stout  army,  a 
faithful  senate,  an  honest  people,  a  peaceful  world,  and  whatsoever  else 
either  prince  or  people  can  wish  for."  For  Dr.  Hook  to  go  before  the 
queen  to  propagate  his  libel  upon  all  her  Christian  subjects,  and  upon 
Christianity  in  general,  deserves  the  severest  rebuke.  Such  a  man  can 
cast  "  firebrands,  arrows,  and  death,  and  say.  Am  I  not  in  sport  T' 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.       343 

in  its  political,  but  simply  and  solely  in  its  religious  charac- 
ter. And  so  you  may  perceive  what  is  meant,  when  we 
say,  that  we  wish  to  speak  of  the  Church,  not  as  an  esta- 
blishment, but  as  the  Church,  a  religious  society,  a 
PARTICULAR  SOCIETY  OF  CHRISTIANS."  Then,  this  ^^par- 
ticular society  of  Christians^''  becomes  "  our  ChurcK^ — 
"  the  Church  of  Exgland" — "  the  Church  ;"  and,  at 
the  last,  on  the  last  page,  this  ''''particular  society  of  Chris- 
tians,''^ becomes  distinguished  from  all  other  "  religious 
societies''  by  these  specific  properties,  as  "  maintain- 
ing those  PECULIAR  doctrines,  and  that  peculiar  disci- 
pline, which  have  always  marked,  and  do  still  continue 
to  mark,  the  distinction  between  the  church  of  Christ, 
administered  under  the  superintendence  of  chief  pastors 
or  bishops  who  regularly  succeeded  to  the  apostles, 
from  THOSE  SECTS  of  Christianity  under  self-appointed 
teachers.''^  Well,  thanks  be  to  the  doctor  for  giving  us,  at 
last,  a  complete  definition  of  the  Chiurch  of  England.  This 
definition,  as  perfected  by  himself,  is,  "  That  the  Church 
of  England  is  a  particular  society  of  Christians  distinguish- 
ed from  all  other  particular  religious  societies,  by  its  pecu- 
liar doctrines,  and  its  peculiar  discipline."  By  discipline, 
he  tells  us,  he  means  its  church  government,  as  adminis- 
tered hy  its  bishops :  their  succession  is  another  question, 
and  has  been  fully  treated  in  the  Essay. 

Now  let  us  try  his  main  position  :  "  the  present  Church 
of  England  is  the  old  Catholic  Church  of  England,  reform- 
ed, in  the  reig-ns  of  Henry,  Edward,  and  Elizabeth,  of  cer- 
tain superstitious  errors  ;  it  is  the  same  Church  which 
came  down  from  our  British  and  Saxon  ancestors.  The 
Church  remained  the  same  after  it  was  reformed  as  it  was 
before,  just  as  a  man  remains  the  same  man  after  he  has 
washed  his  face  as  he  was  before^''  pp.  11,  12. 

Here,  then,  let  us  examine  the  matter.  The  Church 
before  the  Reformation  was  "a  particular  religious  society  ;" 
and  the  Church  after  the  Reformation  was  "  a  particular 
religious  society."  There  is,  then,  this  general  agreement, 
that  each  was  "  a  religious  society."     So  a  harlot*  is  a  wo- 

*  Some  respectable  persons  have  made  a  little  objection  to  this  illus- 
tration. The  writer  has  duly  weighed  their  observations,  and  thinks 
them  groundless,  for  the  following  reasons  :  1st.  TLc  authority  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  of  all  the  great  reformers,  justifies  and  authorizes  the 


344       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

man,  and  a  virgin  is  a  woman.  There  is  this  general  agree- 
ment between  them,  that  each  is  a  woman.  Now  if  we 
wish  to  know  the  difference  that  distinguishes  the  harlot 
from  the  virgin,  we  should  be  told  that  it  would  be  the 
peculiar  principles,  manners,  and  conduct  of  each.  If, 
then,  we  wish  to  know  the  difference  that  distinguishes  the 
Church  before  the  Reformation,  from  the  Church  after  the 
Reformation,  the  answer  would  be,  "  The  peculiar  doc- 
trines and  the  peculiar  discipline  of  each  Church."  Each 
is  a  Church,  that  is,  "  a  religious  society ;"  as  each  of  the 
above  persons  is  a  woman  :  but  were  those  Churches  the 
SAME  1  This  will  be  answered  by  another  question — Are  a 
harlot  and  a  virgin  the  same  1  Yes,  according  to  Dr. 
Hook,  if  the  harlot  ivashes  her  face  ! 

Let  us  look  at  the  face  of  the  Church  before  the  Refor- 
mation, and  at  the  face  of  the  Church  after  the  Reforma- 
tion : — at  their  peculiar  doctrines,  and  their  peculiar 
discipline. 

1.  Peculiar  doctrines: 

Transubstantiation. — The  Church,  before  the  Refor- 
mation, maintained  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and 
committed  hundreds  to  the  flames  for  disputing  it :  but 

The  Church,  after  the  Reformation,  declares  it  "  repugn 
nant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  that  it  overthroweth  the 
nature  of  a  sacrament,  and  hath  given  occasion  to  many 
superstitions."     Art.  28th  of  the  Church  of  England. 

Masses. — The  Church,  before  the  Reformation,  main- 
tained that  the  priests  did  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and 
dead  to  have  remission  oi  pain  and  guilt : — 

The  Church,  after  the  Reformation,  declares  these 
positions  to  be  "  blasphemous  fables  and  dangerous  deceits." 
Article  31st  of  the  Church  of  England. 

Images. — The  Church,  before  the  Reformation,  main- 
tained the  worship  of  images,  and  the  churches  were  full  of 
images : — • 

The  Church,  after  the  Reformation,  declares  this  to  be 
idolatry  ;    see  homily  on  idolatry.     Thus  also  the  22d 

application  of  the  term  harlot  as  the  most  appropriate  designation  of  a 
corrupt  church  ;  so  it  is  here  applied  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  2ndly. 
The  contrast  of  the  purity  of  the  Church  of  England  by  the  term 
virgin,  pays  a  respect  to  that  Church,  as  constituted  by  the  reformers, 
and  as  a  most  important  branch  of  the  Protestant  church,  which,  under 
this  view,  the  writer  has  a  pleasure  in  paying. 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        345 

Article :  "  The  Romish  doctrine  concerning  purgatory, 
pardons,  worshipping  and  adoration,  as  well  of  images  as  of 
r  cliques^  and  also  invocation  of  saints,  is  a  fond  thing,  vainly 
invented,  and  grounded  upon  no  warranty  of  Scripture,  but 
rather  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God." 

Justification. — The  Church,  before  the  Reformation, 
maintained  that  a  man  wa.s  justified  through  the  grace  of 
God  by  works,  and  not  by  faith  only  : — 

The  Church,  after  the  Reformation,  maintained  that  the 
doctrine  "  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,  is  a  most 
wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  fall  of  comfort,  as  more  largely 
is  expressed  m  the  homily  of  justification."  Article  11. 

These  points  of  doctrine  may  suffice — many  more  might 
be  added. 

2.  Peculiar  discipline  : 

The  Church,  before  the  Reformation,  acknowledged  the 

POPE     as    SUPREME    HEAD     OF    THE  ChURCH,    aS    ChRIST's 

VICAR,  and  that  all  were  heretics  who  rejected  him.  A 
few  passages  from  the  canon  law,  as  collected  by  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  and  given  in  the  Collection  of  Records 
by  Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation, 
book  iii.  No.  27,  will  illustrate  this  point : 

"  He  that  acknowledgeth  not  himself  to  be  under  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  ordained 
by  God  to  have  primacy  over  all  the  world,  is  a  heretic, 
and  cannot  be  saved,  nor  is  not  of  the  flock  of  Christ. 

^'  All  the  decrees  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  ought  to  be  kept 
perpetually  of  every  man,  without  any  repugnancy,  as 
God's  word  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  Peter,  and  whosoever 
doth  not  receive  them,  neither  availeth  them  the  Catholic 
faith,  nor  the  four  evangelists,  but  they  blaspheme  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  shall  have  no  forgiveness. 

"  The  see  of  Rome  hath  neither  spot  nor  wrinkle  in  it, 
nor  cannot  err. 

"  The  bishop  of  Rome  may  excommunicate  emperors  and 
princes,  and  depose  them  from  their  states,  and  assoil 
their  subjects  from  their  oath  and  obedience  to  them,  and  so 
constrain  them  to  rebellion P 

All  the  bishops  in  England,  before  the  Reformation, 

SWORE    OBEDIENCE     TO    THE   POPE     OF  ROME  :    SCO    Section 

xii  of  the  Essay  :  but 

The  Church,  after  the  Reformation,  declared  the  pope  to 
15* 


346       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

he  antichrist,  the  son  of  perdition  ;  and  the  Church  of  Rome 
to  be  an  idolatrous  Church:  see  Essay,  section  xi.  And 
every  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England  is  bound  to  reject 
THE  AUTHORITY  of  the  pope  and  the  court  of  Rome,  under 

the  PENALTY  of  PR^MUNIRE. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  ^^ peculiar  doctrines  and  the  pecu- 
liar discipline''''  of  the  Church  before  the  Reformation,  and 
those  of  the  Church  after  the  Reformation,  expressly 
CONTRADICT  EACH  OTHER:  the  Church  after  the  Reforma- 
tion charging  idolatry  and  blasphemy  upon  the  Church 
before  the  Reformation.  Yet,  says  Dr.  Hook,  "  They  are 
the  same."  And  Dr.  Hook  can  prove  it — yea  more — he 
can  prove,  by  his  principles,  that  black  is  white,  and  that 
two  and  two  are  five.  Thus,  two  and  two  are  numbers  ; 
and^ve  is  a  number  ;  ergo,  two  and  two  are  the  same  as 
five,  that  is,  they  are  both  numbers  : — black  is  a  colour, 
and  white  is  a  colour ;  ergo,  black  and  white  are  the  same, 
that  is,  they  are  both  colours.  Yes,  replies  the  reader, 
but  it  was  supposed  you  meant  that  two  and  two  were  the 
same  in  amount  as  five ;  and  that  black  was  the  same 
colour  as  white.  True,  but  this  is  leaving  the  general 
nature  of  the  things,  and  coming  to  the  specific  differences  ; 
and  I  only  spoke  in  generals.  Dr.  Hook  only  shows  you 
the  general  nature  of  the  thing  at  first :  the  Church  before 
the  Reformation  is  a  religious  society,  and  the  Church 
after  the  Reformation  is  a  religious  society ;  ergo,  they 
are  the  same,  that  is,  they  are  both  religious  societies ;  as 
black  and  white  are  both  colours.  True,  says  the  reader, 
hut  we  supposed  he  meant  that  they  had  the  same  distin- 
guishing properties  or  qualities.  Whether  Dr.  Hook  meant 
it  himself  or  not,  I  cannot  say  ;  but  he  doubtless  meant 
his  readers  to  think  they  had  the  same  distinguishing  proper- 
lies,  that  is,  the  same  peculiar  doctrines,  and  the  same 
peculiar  discipline  :  see  p.  23  of  his  sermon  as  quoted 
above.  However,  it  was  neither  convenient  for  him  to 
say  so  "  at  the  outset"  of  his  sermon,  nor  was  it  agreeable 
to  him  to  exhibit  this  their  identity  afterward:  black 
would  have  been  seen  to  be  black,  and  white  would  have 
been  white  still :  the  virgin  would  have  appeared  a  virgin, 
and  the  harlot  would  have  appeared  a  harlot,  after  the  doc- 
tor's perspiration  in  loashing  her  face. 

The  doctor's  position,  then,  is  a  mere  fallacy,  involving 


ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.        347 

the  real  absurdity,  that  two  religious  societies,  distinguish- 
ed as  societies  by  their  '■^peculiar  doctrines,  and  their  jsecM- 
Zmr  discipline,"  and  \\\io^e  peculiar  doctrines  and  peculiar 
discipline  flatly  contradict  each  other,  are  yet  one  and  the 
same  society,  that  is,  that  contradictory  propositions  are 
identical  propositions! — They  are, — just  as  much  so  as 
black  and  white  are  the  same,  and  as  two  and  two  are  five. 

The  absurdity  of  the  doctor's  position  being  thus  mani- 
fest, all  his  conclusions  fall  to  the  ground  ;  and  the  fol- 
lowing opposite  conclusions  become  established  : 

Conclusion  1st. — The  Church  before  the  Reformation, 
and  the  Church  after  the  Reformation,  are  two  different 
churches,  distinguished  by  directly  opposite  peculiar  doc- 
trines, and  peculiar  discipline,  or  church  government. 

Conclusion  2d. — The  Church  cfter  the  Reformation,  as 
distinguished  by  its  peculiar  doctrine  and  peculiar  disci- 
pline, was  founded  at  the  Reformation,  as  much  so  as  the 
Scotch  church,  the  Lutheran  church,  or  any  of  those 
other  sects  toward  which  the  doctor  manifests  such 
scorn. 

As  to  the  succession  of  the  bishops  of  the  Church  of 
England,  through  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  through  the 
Church  before  the  Reformation,  we  have  shown  in  the 
Essay,  that  they  have  no  more  claim,  on  that  ground,  than 
bastards  have  to  the  inheritance  of  legitimate  children. 

Conclusion  3d. — The  Church  of  England,  and  the 
bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  have  no  more  just  af- 
finity to  the  British  or  Saxon  churches,  than  any  other 
church  that  equally  resembles  them  in  peculiar  doctrine 
and  discipline.  The  doctor's  .assertion,  at  page  9,  that 
"  the  Church,  as  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  had  ex- 
isted, as  all  parties  admit,  from  the  first  planting  of  Chris- 
tianity in  England,"  is  one  of  his  accustomed,  hardy,  fal- 
lacious, and  baseless  statements.  Had  that  Church,  as 
distinguished  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation  by  such 
"  peculiar  doctrines  and  peculiar  discipline"  as  we  have 
seen  above,  existed  as  always  marked  (p.  23)  by  those 
"  peculiar  doctrines  and  that  peculiar  discipline"  from  the 
first  planting  of  Christianity  in  England  ?  Yes  !  the  doc- 
tor says,  "  All  parties  admit"  this  ! !  Then  all  parties 
admit  that  full-grown  Popery  existed  in  England  from 
the  first  planting  of  Christianity  in  this  country  ! !     The 


348       ON  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

reader  who  believes  this  is  worthy  to  be  a  disciple  of  Dr. 
Hook. 

Conclusion  4th. — The  right  of  the  present  Church  of 
England  to  those  church  endowments,  which  existed  before 
the  Reformation,  is  merely  statute  right.  The  parliament 
has  as  much  power  to  alienate  as  to  appropriate.  If  the 
Church  of  England  has  a  righteous  claim  to  those  endow- 
ments, any  other  church  might,  by  another  statute,  have  an 
equally  righteous  claim  to  them. 

The  sum  of  the  whole,  is,  then,  that  the  Church  of 
England,  as  a  religious  society,  must  establish  its  claim 
to  affinity  with  apostolical  churches,  with  the  British  and 
Saxon  churches,  and  the  Church  before  the  Reformation,  by 
the  resemblance  of  its  peculiar  doctrines  and  its  peculiar 
discipline  to  the  peculiar  doctrines  and  the  peculiar  disci- 
pline of  those  churches.  Her  bishops,  and  her  other 
ministers,  must  prove  their  claim  to  apostolicity  by  their 
likeness  to  the  apostles  in  personal  piety,  a  divine  call  to 
the  ministry,  and  by  the  preaching  of  the  faith  as  the 
apostles  preached  it.  Whatever  they  possess  besides  is 
but  as  the  chaff  to  the  wheat.  All  other  churches  must 
do  the  same.  Here  is  the  divine  rule.  Here  let  all  strive 
to  excel :  let  all  covet  the  best  gifts.  Above  all,  let  them 
keep  in  mind  the  more  excellent  way.  What  is  true  indi- 
vidually, is  true  of  churches  collectively :  "  Though  I 
speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of  angels,  and  have  not 
charity,  I  am  become  as  sounding  brass  or  a  tinkling 
cymbal,"  &;c.,  1  Cor.  xii. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


Abbots,  though  only  presbyters,  or- 
dain bishops,  155,  note. 

Aerius,  128. 

African  church  never  maintained 
episcopacy  jure  divino,  169. 

Alasco,  John,  192,  &c. 

American  churches,  Dr.  Hook's 
attack  upon,  341. 

Ambrose,  St.,  on  bishops  as  apos- 
tles, 30,  45 — on  the  primus  pres- 
byter, 96 — his  Commentaries, 
126 — on  succession  of  faith,  284. 

Ancyra,  council  of,  on  presbyters 
ordaining,  133. 

Angels  of  the  seven  churches  of 
Asia,  59-63,  141-143. 

Apostle,  different  meanings  of  the 
word,  36,  &c. — prerogatives  of, 
41,  &,c. — power  of,  314. 

Apostleship  of  bishops  examined, 
29-50. 

Apostolical  bishops,  who  1  49. 

Arian  bishops,  ordination  by,  257, 
258. 

Athanasius  on  episcopacy  examin- 
ed, 126. 

Augsburg  confession  on  the  identity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  177. 

Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  on 
the  word  apostle,  46 — on  the  au- 
thority of  fathers  and  councils, 
89 — on  the  office  of  a  presbyter, 
133. 

Austin  the  monk,  his  treachery, 
242. 

Baptism  nullified  by  confirmation, 
197,  198. 

Baronius  on  the  election  of  the 
popes,  220,  &c. 

Barrow,  Dr.  Isaac,  on  the  nature 
of  proofs,  34 — on  the  apostolical 
office,  49 — his  arguments  destroy 
high  Church  episcopacy,  51^-on 


forsaking  bad  and  heretical  minis- 
ters, 79 — remarks  on  Cyprian, 
120,  121. 

Barrington,  Lord,  on  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,  98. 

Bede,  on  British  bishops,  238,  &c. 

Bellarmine  on  bishops  having  no 
part  of  true  apostolical  authority, 
49. 

Bentley,  Dr.,  on  bishops  being  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  32. 

Beveridge,  Bishop,  gives  up  Scrip- 
tural authority  for  any  certain 
form  of  church  government,  27 
— on  the  term  high  priest,  50. 

Beza,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  202 — on  episco- 
pacy, 301. 

Bickersteth,  Rev.  E.,  his  Christian 
Student  quoted,  277. 

Bilney,  the  martyr,  on  the  inward 
call  to  the  ministry,  73. 

Bingham's  Origmes  Ecclesiasticae 
quoted,  30 — on  the  authority  of 
Jerome,  95. 

Bishop,  emaicoTrog,  meaning  of,  in 
the  New  Testament,  82-87. 

Bishops,  how  successors  of  the 
apostles,  29-50 — how  they  re- 
semble the  Jewish  high  priests, 
50,  5 1 — ancient  British,  account 
of,  237-242. 

Bishopric,  86. 

Blondel,  JDavid,  on  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  204. 

Bochart,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  204. 

Bona,  Cardinal,  quoted,  90. 

Burnet,  Bishop,  quoted,  146,  149, 
154,  192 — on  the  elections  of  the 
popes,  219 — on  the  nature  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  265,  266. 

Cabassute  quoted,  113,  120. 


350 


INDEX. 


Calderwood's  Altare  Damascenum 
quoted,  132. 

Calvin,  on  confirmation,  197 — on 
the  identity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, 202 — on  Popish  ordina- 
tions, 263 — letter  to  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  269 — on  apostolical 
succession,  284,  285. 

Canon  law  quoted,  170. 

Carthage,  fourth  council  of,  quoted, 
119,  120. 

Catholic  Church,  what  1  298. 

Cave,  Dr.,  on  the  character  of 
Epiphanius,  129. 

Chairs,  apostolical,  presbyters  sit 
in,  113. 

Chairs,  bishops',  what  1    113,117. 

Charity  of  Papists  and  high  Church- 
men, 22,  23. 

Chemnitius  on  the  atrocity  of  the 
succession  scheme,  19. 

Chillingworth,  on  divine  right,  25 — 
a  fine  passage  from,  292. 

Church  government,  32,  299. 

Church  of  England,  as  by  the  re- 
formers, 11,  144-169,  301,  340. 

Church  and  state,  144,  303-305, 
341,  note. 

Chrysostom,  on  ordination,  ex- 
plained, 129-132. 

Chor-episcopi,  or  village  bishops, 
133,  134. 

Claude,  on  the  absurdity  of  the  high 
Church  scheme20 — on  the  identi- 
ty of  bishops  and  presbyters,  204. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  on  episco- 
pacy, examined,  114,  &c. 

Clemens  Romanus's  Epistle  com- 
mented upon,  97,  &c.,  324,  325. 

Clergy,  English,  general  exclusive- 
ness  of,  11. 

CoUcga,  term  explained,  119,  120. 

Columba,  the  abbot  of  the  monas- 
tery of  lona,  &c.,  governs 
bishops,  238-241,  328. 

Comenius  quoted,  180. 

Comber,  Dr.,  on  the  baselessness 
of  succession,  217,  &c. 

Commission  of  Christ  to  the  apos- 
tles, explained,  27,  28. 

Confession   of  Augsburg    on    the 


identity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, 177. 

Confirmation  examined,  196-200. 

Congregationalism,  316. 

Cox,  Dr.,  the  reformer,  on  the 
identity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, 150. 

Cosin,  Bishop,  on  presbyterian  or- 
dination, 48,  154. 

Courayer,  Dr.,  on  English  ordina- 
tions, quoted,  137,  138. 

Cranmer,  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, on  episcopal  consecration, 
137,  138 — on  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  150,  202. 

Cummin,  the  friar,  331. 

Cyprian,  on  episcopacy,  examined, 
118,  &c. — on  genuine  succes- 
sion, 282. 

Daille,  the  celebrated  French  Pro- 
testant divine,  exposes  the  plea 
of  Timothy's  being  bishop  of 
Ephesus,  58 — on  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  204. 

Damian,  P.,  cardinal-bishop  of 
Ostia,  quoted,  254. 

Dodwell,  the  Rev.  H.,  on  unity 
with  bishops  as  necessary  to 
salvation,  17 — gives  up  Scrip- 
tural evidence  for  any  particular 
form  of  church  government,  26, 
32 — on  the  office  of  an  apostle, 33 
— on  Judas,  33 — his  arguments 
establish  a  popedom,  121. 

Edward  VI.  (King)  on  the  high 
priesthood,  52. 

Elections  of  popes  described,  220. 

Elfric,  Saxon  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, canons  of,  92. 

England,  king  of,  the  vassal  of  the 
pope,  245. 

English  bishops  before  the  Refor- 
mation, ordination  and  descent 
of,  243,  &c. 

Enthronization  of  bishops,  137. 

Epaphroditus,  a  messenger  of  the 
church,  his  oflflce  explained,  40. 

Epiphanius's  character,  &c.,  128. 

Episcopacy  of  the  New  Testament, 
what^  82-88. 


INDEX. 


351 


Episcopacy,  ecclesiastical,  what  1 
95,  &c.,  141-144. 

Episcopal  consecration  non-essen- 
tial, 136-139. 

Erasmus,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  202. 

Exclusiveness  too  general  among 
the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England,  1 1 — of  the  high  Church 
succession  scheme,  22,  and  gen- 
erally through  the  Essay. 

EvangeUst,  what  1   55. 

Eusebius,  on  the  word  apostle,  45 
— on  the  darkness  and  difficulty 
of  the  succession,  215,  216. 

Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
quoted,  132,  326. 

Faber's  work  on  the  Vallenses, 
quoted,  190 — remark  on,  190. 

Faith,  succession  of,  the  only  essen- 
tial   succession,  107-1  li,    281. 

Fathers,  authority  of,  89,  &c. 

Field,  Dr.,  on  the  identity  of  bish- 
ops and  presbyters,  162-166 — 
on  genuine  succession,  287. 

Firmilian,  bishop  of  Cesarea,  on 
ordination  by  presbyters,  125. 

Flacius  lUyricus,  M.,  on  the  iden- 
tity of  bishops  and  presbyters, 
203. 

French  reformed  church,  maintains 
the  identity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, 178 — on  confirmation,  197. 

Froude,  R.Hurrell,an  Oxford  Tract- 
man,  hates  the  Reformation,  144 
— is  disgusted  with  Bishop  Jew- 
el's Defence,  156. 

Fulke,  Dr.,  on  the  nullity  of  Popish 
ordination,  265. 

"  Gift  of  God,"  what  1  323. 
Gildas's  account  of  the  wickedness 

of  the  bishops  in  his  days,  238. 
Godwin,  Bishop,  on  the  Lives  of 

the  English  Bishops,  243,  &c. 
Godwin,  Dr.,  on  the  Jewish  high 

priesthood,  51. 
Gradin,  Arvid,  quoted,  181. 
Greek    church    never    maintained 

episcopacy  jure  divino,    170 — 

on  confirmation,  199. 


Gregory  Nazianzen,  on  genuine 
succession,  283. 

Grindal,  Abp.  of  Canterbury,  ap- 
proves of  presbyterian  ordination, 
154. 

Grosthead,  bishop  of  Lincoln,  re- 
proves the  pope,  244. 

Grotius,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  205 — on  divine 
right,  205. 

Hall,  Bishop,  on  presbyterian  ordi- 
I  nation  and  genuine  succession, 
j  condemns  this  high  Church 
I      scheme,  288. 

Hammond,    Dr.,   gives    up   direct 
Scripture  evidence  for  episcopa- 
cy, 26 — on  Scriptural  presbyters 
as  governors  of  the  church,  33 
— on  the  succession  of  the  Jew- 
i      ish  high  priests,  272. 
j  Hands,  imposition  of,  29,  138,  250. 
;  Haweis,  Dr.,  Church    History  of, 
I      giving  an  account  of  the  rise  of 
I      Methodism,  278. 
I  Heber,  Bp.,  remarks  of,  on  Bp.  Tay- 
I      lor's  doctrine  of  confirmation,  and 
I      on  his  use  of  authorities,  199. 
Hickes,  on  the  dignity  of  the  epis- 
j      copal  order,  15. 
i  High  Churchism,  semi-popery,  ex- 
j      clusiveness   and   intolerance  of, 

passim. 
High  priest,  Jewish,  50,  51,  68, 80, 

319,  320. 
Hilary,  the  deacon,  quoted,  126. 
Hispala,  council  of,  quoted,  172. 
Historic  evidence  for  high  Church 
succession,  none,  212,  &c.,  312. 
Holland,  Dr.,  the  king's  professor 
of  divinity   at    Oxford,    on    the 
identity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, 168. 
Holmes,  Rev.  J.,  of  Fulncck,  "  His- 
tory  of  the  United   Brethren," 
quoted,  182,  &c. 
Hook,  Dr.,  vicar  of  Leeds,  on  high 
Church  episcopacy  and  succes- 
sin,  15 — on  episcopal  ordination 
as  essential  to  salvation,   18 — 
arrogance    of,    24 — on    bishops 


352 


INDEX. 


being  apostles,  31 — his  blunder- 
ing and  bigoted  scorn  of  the  re- 
formed churches,  213 — his  "  Call 
to  Union,"  334— On  Hear  the 
Church,  reviewed,  340. 
Hooker,  on  presbyters,  62,  159, 161 
— on  divine  right,  64,  160,  161. 

Ignatius's  Epistles  examined,  100. 

Irenaeus,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  105,  &c. — on 
genuine  succession,  282. 

James,  St.,  made  bishop  over  the 
apostles  !  !   65. 

Jerome,  on  the  word  apostle,  46 
— on  the  identity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  93-95 — on  ordination 
by  presbyters,  131,  &c. 

Jewel,  Bishop,  on  the  word  presby- 
ter, 105 — hated  by  Froude,  an 
Oxford  Tract-man,  156 — on  non- 
preaching  prelates,  276 — on  gen- 
uine succession,  286. 

Joan,  Pope,  history  of,  229,  &c. 

Johnson,  Rev.  Mr.,  translator  of 
the  Code  of  the  Universal 
Church,  quoted,  174 — on  the 
monk  Austin  and  the  British 
bishops,  242 — on  the  bishop's 
pall,  249. 

Judas,  his  apostleship  treated,  261. 

Jurisdiction  of  bishops,  what  1  166- 
168,  330,  331. 

Justin  Martyr's  testimony  to  epis- 
copacy, examined,  104,  &c. 

Korah  and  his  company,high  Church 
blunders  upon,  318. 

Lapsed,  the  case  of, "  in  Cyprian, 
explained,  122. 

Laud,  Abp.,  the  father  of  semi- 
papist  Church  of  England  di- 
vines, and  jure  divino  men,  10. 

Lavington,  on  moral  preaching, 
277. 

Leger,  on  the  Waldenses,  190. 

Leslie,  Rev.  C,  on  episcopacy,  177. 

Lloyd,  bishop  of  Worcester,  refer- 
red to,  241. 

Luther  ordains  the  first  bishop  of 
the  Lutheran  church,  176. 


Lutheran  episcopacy,  96. 

Martyr,  Peter,  on  Popish  vest- 
ments, 270 — on  the  succession 
of  faith,  285. 

Mason,  Archdeacon,  on  the  power 
of  wicked  bishops  to  give  true 
orders,  17 — on  St  Austin's  con- 
nection with  the  slaughter  of 
one  thousand  two  hundred  pres- 
byters, 242. 

Melancthon,  on  confirmation,  196 
— on  the  identity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  203 — on  genuine 
succession,  285. 

Methodists,  Wesleyan,  rise  of,  278, 
&c. — superintendency  of,  resem- 
bles primitive  episcopacy,  62, 
97,  104,  211,  303. 

Ministers,  gospel  qualifications  of, 
71,  &c.,  252,  &c.,  296. 

Ministers,  wicked,  to  be  forsaken, 
75-79,  107,  121. 

Moral  impossibility,  334. 

Moravian  episcopacy,  180,  &c. 

Mornay,  P.  Lord  du  Plessis,  264. 

Mosheim,  on  Ignatius's  Epistles, 
100 — on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  208. 

Names  of  bishops  and  presbyters 
so  used  in  common  in  the  New 
Testament  as  to  prove  that  the 
things  were  substantially  the 
same,  83-86,  319. 

Nice,  Council  of,  its  Epistle  quoted, 
134-136,  337. 

Order,  degree,  &c.,  explained,  9L 
Orders,  Book  of,  for  ordaining  Bish- 
ops and  Priests  by  the  reformers, 

explained,  151,  &c. 
Ordination,  Popish,  examined,  250- 

261. 
Ordination  of  presbyters,  form  of, 

in  the  Church  of  England,  29, 

151,  152. 
Ordination     by      presbyters — see 

Presbyter. 
Origen,  writings  of,  on  episcopacy, 

examined,  116,  &c. 
Overall,  Bishop,  quoted,  103. 


INDEX. 


353 


Oxford  Tracts,  quoted,  18 — wri- 
ters of,  English  Jesuits,  175 — 
their  sophistical  ambiguity  ex- 
posed, 177. 

Pall,  bishops',  described,  248,  &c. 

Parker's,  Abp. ,  ordination,  103,261. 

Pearson,  Bp.,  on  the  ancient  cata- 
logues of  bishops,  216. 

Perceval,  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  A.  P., 
on  the  case  of  Judas,  262. 

Peter,  St.,  whether  ever  at  Romel 
216. 

Popes,  catalogues  of,  217,  &c. — 
election  of,  220 — schisms  among, 
221,  &c.— wickedness  of,  222, 

228,  236 — encourage  rebellion, 

229,  345— heretics,  233— simo- 
niacs,  234 — depose  sovereigns, 
309. 

Pope  Joan,  history  of,  229. 

Popery,  11,  66,  69,  79,  174,  216, 
&c.,  290,  308,  309,  343,  &c. 

Polycarp,  Epistle  of,  quoted,  104. 

Pontifical,  a  forgery,  218. 

Perrin,  on  the  Waldenses,  189, 
193. 

Presbyter,meamng  of  the  word,  105, 
113. 

Presbyters,  commission  of  the 
apostles,  applied  to  their  ordina- 
tion by  the  English  reformers, 
27,  28,  153 — possess  the  power 
of  ordaining,  55-57,  71, 125, 130, 
130-136,  140,  153-155,  166, 
176,  177,  184,  239,  &c.— suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  101,  106, 
140,  210,  211— govern  the 
church,  33,  43 — preside  over 
the  church,  101,  105,  106,  112, 
113,  117,  119,  124. 

Presbytery,  whati  56,  114-116. 

President  in  the  primitive  church, 
whati  190,  194. 

Prideaux,  Dr.,  on  the  baselessness 
of  a  personal  succession,  219, 
&c. — on  the  monstrous  wicked- 
ness of  the  popes,  235,  &c. . 

Priest,  high,  none  but  Christ  under 
the  new  covenant,  51,  80 — Jew- 
ish, 50,  51,  68,  69,  80,  319,  320 


— prophets    neglect    the    title, 

ibid. 
Priests,  none  on  earth  under  the 

gospel,  70. 
Prophets  neglect  the  distinction  of 

high  priest,  318-320. 
Protean    character    of    the    high 

Church  succession  scheme,  53. 

Ravanel,  on  confirmation,  196. 

Redmayne,  Dr.,  the  reformer,  on 
the  identity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, 150. 

Reeves's  translation  of  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, quoted,  104,  113. 

Reformation,  hated  by  Froude,  an 
Oxford  Tract-man,  144 — scorned 
by  Dr.  Hook,  213,  214. 

Reformed  churches  maintain  the 
identity  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, 178. 

Reformers,  English,  maintaining 
that  the  commission  of  the  apos- 
tles belongs  to  presbyters,  27, 
28,1 53 — opposed  to  high  Church 
episcopacy,  144,  169,  265-267 
— on  ordination,  264. 

Reiner's  (the  monk)  Account  of  the 
Waldenses,  190. 

Right,  divine,  nature  of,  35,  36, 
136,  137,  275. 

Robertson,  Dr.,  the  reformer,  on 
the  identity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, 150. 

Rome,  Church  of,  never  maintained 
episcopacy  jure  divino,  or  by  di- 
vme  right,  170,  174 — idolatry 
and  wickedness  of,  224,  &c. — 
Bishops  of,  see  Popes. 

Salmasius  on  Ignatius's  Epistles, 
100. 

Sanhedrim,  the  manner  of  ordina- 
tion in  the  Christian  church  de- 
rived from  the,  135. 

Saxon  church,  343,  &c. — canons 
of,  make  bishops  and  presbyters 
one  order,  92. 

Schisms,  many  in  the  popedom, 
221,  &c. 

Schleusner,  on  the  identity  of  bish- 
ops and  presbyters,  209. 


354 


INDEX/ 


Scriptural  evidence   for    the  high 

Church  scheme,  none,  26. 
SeifFerth,    Rev.    B.,    letter   from, 

182. 
Semi-papists,     high      Churchmen 

such,  passim. 
Simony,  sin  of,  &c.,  235,  244,  250, 

258,  260. 
Sinclair,  Rev.  J.,  corrected,  in  the 

notes  at  pp.  56,  65,  84,  127,  177, 

and  pp.  91,  206. 
Smith,  on  the  Greek  church,  quo- 
ted, 199. 
Stillingfleet,  on  the  nature  of  divine 

right,  35,  36 — on  Ignatius,  104 

— on  apostolical  succession,  288. 
Succession,  high  Church  scheme. 

Popery  of,  passim. 
Succession,    genuine    apostolical, 

271,  293. 
Succession  of  Jewish  high  priests, 

272. 
Suicer,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 

and  presbyters,  208. 
Superintendency    of    bishops    ex- 
plained, 96,  &c. 
Superintendency,    Wesleyan,     62, 

97,  104,  211,  303. 
Superintendents    of  the  Lutheran 

Church,  62,  96. 
Superhitendents  of  the  Scotch  kirk, 

54. 
Synagogue,    ordination     rites    of, 

adopted  by  the  Christian  church, 

135. 

Taylor,  Bishop,  extracts  from  his 
Episcopacy  Asserted,  13,  17,  25 
— perverts  the  meaning  of  au- 
thors, 38 — on  tradition,  89 — on 
Epiphanius,  129 — on  confirma- 
tion, 198. 

TertuUian,  extracts  from,  110 — on 
genuine  succession,  282— quoted, 
342,  note. 

Theodoret  quoted,  30,  44. 

Titus  not  an  apostle,  38. 

Timothy  and  Titus,  case  of,  argued, 
52-59,  142,  321-323. 

2  Timothy  i,  6,  explained,  55,  323. 

Tradition,  89,  109. 


Trent,  council  of,  on  the  identity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  174. 

United  States,  churches  of,  attack- 
ed by  Dr.  Hook,  341. 

Usher,  Abp.,  on  the  spuriousness 
of  Ignatius's  Epistles,  100 — on 
the  identity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, 209. 

Valesius's  note  on  the  word  apostle, 
45 — on  the  Miletian  clergy,  134. 

Vestments,  Popish,  270. 

Vitringa,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  208. 

"Voice  of  the  church,"  177,  332. 

Wake,  Abp.,  translation  of  Clemens 
Romanus  corrected,  97 — on  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  100. 

Waldenses,  an  account  of  the,  179, 
195 — their  opinion  of  confirma- 
tion, 196 — on  the  nullity  of  Po- 
pish ordinations,  262. 

Wells,  Dr.,  corrected,  222. 

Wesley,  the  Rev.  J.  &  C,  278, 
&c. 

Wesley,  the  Rev.  J.,  on  apostolical 
succession,  289. 

Whitaker,  Dr.,  on  the  apostolical 
office,  49 — on  genuine  succes- 
sion, 108,  287— on  the  identity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  158, 
202 — on  the  nullity  of  Popish 
orders,  265. 

W^hitby,  Dr.,  142 — on  the  simony 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  234, 
&c. 

White,  Dr.  J.,  on  genuine  succes- 
sion, 287. 

White,  Francis,  bishop  of  Ely,  on 
genuine  succession,  288. 

Whitefield,  Rev.  G.,  278,  &c. 

Wickliffe,  on  the  identity  of  bish- 
ops and  presbyters,  145,  201 — 
on  confirmation,  196. 

Zanchius,  on  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  206 — on  Popish 
vestments,  270 — on  genuine 
succession,  285. 


GENERAL  CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 

Miscellaneous. 

Abbott,  Rev.  Benjamin,  Experience  and  Gospel  La- 
bours of  the  ;  to  which  is  annexed  a  Narrative  of  his  Life  and 
Death.     By  John  Ffirth.     18mo.  SO  50 

Admonitory  Counsels,   addressed  to  a  Methodist  on 

Subjects  of  Christian  Experience  and  Practice.     By  John  Bake- 
well.     18mo.  38 

Advice   to  the  Teens.     By   the   Rev.  Isaac  Taylor. 

18mo.  31 

Alleine's  Alarm,  and  Baxter's  Call.     18mo.  50 

Almanac,  Methodist  06 

Apology  for  the  Bible,  in  a  Series  of  Letters  address- 
ed to  Thomas  Paine,  author  of  the  "  Age  of  Reason,"  &c.  By 
Bp.  Watson.   18mo.  *  38 

Apostles  and  Evangelists,  Lives  of  the.  By  Rev. 
George  Peck,  D.  D.     18mo.  38 

Baptism,  Letters  on.     By  the  "Rev.  T.  Merritt.    8vo. 

pamphlet  09 

Baptism,    Christian,    its   Mode,    Obligation,    Import, 

and  Relative  Order.     By  Rev.  F.  G.  Hibbard.   12mo.  63 

Baptism,    Obligation,   Mode,    and    Subjects   of.     By 

Rev.  H.  Slicer.     18mo.  50 

Baptism,  Sermon  on.     By  Rev.  P.  P.  Sandford.    8vo. 

pamphlet  12 

Bingham,  Miss,  Life  of.     18mo.  38 

Bramwell,  William,  Memoir  of  the  Life  and  Ministry 

of.     By  James  Sigston.     18mo.  50 

Bunting,  Miss  Hannah  S.,  Memoir,  Diary  and  Letters 

of.     Compiled  by  the  Rev.  T.  Merritt.    2  vols.  ISrao.  50 

Calvinistic  Controversy,  embracing  a  Sermon  on  Pre- 
destination and  Election.  By  the  Rev.  Wilbur  Fisk,  D.  D. 
12mo.  75 

Carey,  William,  Conversations  on  the  Life  of.   18mo.  31 
Carvosso,  Mr.  William,  Memoir  of;  sixty  years  a  class 

leader.    18mo.  50 

Centenary   of  Wesleyan    Methodism.     By  Rev.   T. 

Jackson.     12mo.  75 

Ceylonese  Converts  25 

Choice  Pleasures  for  Youth.     18mo.  31 

Christian  Biography,  vol.  1,  containing  Lives  of  Isaac 

Watts,  D.  D.,  and  Mr.  Thomas  Haliburton.     ISmo.  50 


GENERAL  CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 
Christian  Biography,  vol.  2,  containing  Lives  of  the 

Rev.  Peard  Dickinson  and  Mr.  John  Janeway  ZO  50 

Do,         vol.  3,  containing  Lives  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  Rev.  Joseph 

AUeine,  and  Mr,  Nathaniel  Heywood  50 

Do,         vol.  4,  containing  Lives  of  the   Rev.  Samuel  Pearce,  Rev, 

John  Shower,  Rev.  S.  Newell,  and  Mrs.  Agnes  Beaumont  50 
Do,         vol.  5,  containmg  Lives  ef  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  Bishop 

Latimer  50 

Christian's  Manuel ;  a  Treatise  on  Christian  Perfec- 
tion.    By  the  Rev.  T.  Merritt.     24mo.  25 

Christian's  Pattern ;  or  a  Treatise  on  the  Imitation  of 
Christ.  By  Thomas  a  Kcmpis.  Translated  by  the  Rev.  John 
Wesley.     24mo.  25 

Christian  Perfection,  a  Plain  Account  of,  as  believed 

and  taught  by  the  Rev,  John  Wesley,     A  neat   pocket  edition. 
24mo.  25 

Christian  Perfection  ;  being  an  Extract  from  the  Rev. 

John  Fletcher's  Treatise  on  that  subject.     24mo.  25 

Christian   Theology.      By   Adam    Clarke,    LL.    D., 

F.  A.  S.,  with  a  Life  of  the  Author  by  Samuel  Dunn.  12mo.  1  00 

Clarke,  Dr.  Adam,  Life  of,  3  vols,  in  I.  12mo.,  plain 

sheep  1  50 

Do,         3d  vol.,  12mo.,  in  muslin  44 

Do,         3d  vol.,  8vo,,  muslin  88 

Do,         English  edition,  3  vols.  8vo.,  extra  calf  8  00 

Do,         abridged.     ISrao.  38 

Class-Book,  [Church,]  leather  cover  20 

Coke,  Rev.  Dr,,  Life  of,  including  his  Travels    and 

Extraordinary  Missionary  Exertions  in  different  Parts  of  the  World. 
By  Samuel  Drew.     12mo.  75 

Coke,  Mrs.  Life  of,     18mo.  25 

Commandment  with  Promise.     By  the  author  of  *'  The 

Week."     18mo.  44 

Conversations  for  the  Young,  designed  to  promote  the 

profitabk   Reading  of  the  Scriptures.     By  the  Rev.  R,  Watson. 
12mo.  75 

Convert's  Guide  and  Preacher's  Assistant.     By  Rev. 

Timothy  Merritt.     18mo.  "  38 

Cooper,  Mrs.,  of  London,  Life  of.     By  Dr.  A.  Clarke. 

18mo.  50 

Cottager,    the   Young.      By   Rev.   Legh   Richmond. 

18mo.  25 

Course  of  Study  of  the  N.  York  Annual  Conference.  06 
Cowley,  Joseph,  Life  of.     By  John  Holland,  author 

of  the  Life  of  Summerfield.     18mo.  25 


GENERAL  CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 
Cox,  Melville  B.,  late  Missionary  to  Liberia,  Life  and 

Remains  of.     By  the  Rev.  G.  F.  Cox.     18mo.  $0  50 

Daily  Monitor.     72mo.,  muslin  3i 

Do,         do         morocco  tucks,  gilt  edges  38 

Dairyman's  Daughter ;  a  new  edition,  with  several  ad- 
ditions.    18mo.  38 

Deaf  and  Dumb,  Recollections  of.     18mo.  3i 

Defence  of  our  Fathers.  By  Rev.  John  Emory.  8vo.  75 

Deists,  a  Short  and  Easy  Method  with.  By  Charles 
Leslie.  06 

Devout   Exercises    of  the    Heart.     By   Mrs.  Rowe, 

24mo.  25 

Dickinson,  Rev.  Peard,  Memoir  of.  Written  by  him- 
self.    Revised  and  corrected  by  Rev.  J.  Beryson.     18mo.  38 

Dick's  Christian  Philosopher,  abridged  by  H.  D.  Gos- 
ling.    18mo.  50 
Dick's    Improvement    of   Society,   abridged    by    do. 

18mo.  50 

Dick'^  Philosophy  of  Religion,  abridged  by  do.  1 8mo.  50 
Dictionary,  Biblical  and  Theological,  explanatory  of 

the  History,  Manners,  and  Customs  of  the  Jews  and  neighbouring 

nations,  &c.     By  Rev.  Richard  Watson.  1  vol.  8vo.,  with  five 

maps,  sheep  plain  3  50 

Do,         calf  plain  4  00 

Do,         calf  gilt  4  25 

Do,         calf  extra  4  50 

Do,         2  vols.,  sheep  3  75 

Do,         2  vols.,  calf  4  25 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  for  Sunday  Schools  and  Fami- 
lies. By  the  Rev.  J.  Covel,  jun. ;.  with  maps  and  fine  engravings. 
18mo.  1  00 

Discipline,  Methodist. 

12aio.,  sheep  plain  50 

75 

87 

1  GO 

1  00 

1  25 

1  50 

25 

38 

50 

75 

75 

75 

1  13 


Do, 

calf  plain 

Do, 

ealf  gilt 

Do, 

calf  extras 

Do, 

roan  neat 

Do, 

calf  do,  gilt  leaves 

Do, 

morocco,  do  do 

Do,: 

24mo.,  sheep  plain 

Do, 

calf  plain 

Do, 

calf  gilt 

Do, 

roan  neat 

Do, 

calf  extra 

Do, 

roan  neat,  with  tucka 

Do, 

morocco,        do 

GENERAL  CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 
Fletcher,  Rev.  J.,  Life  of.     By  Rev.  Joseph  Benson. 

12mo.  ^0  75 

Fletcher,  Works  of,  in  4  vols.,  8vo.,  plain  sheep      7  50 

Do,  calf  plain  8  50 

Do,  calf  gilt  9  50 

Do,  calf  extra  10  50 

Fletcher's  Checks,  2  vols.  8vo.  4  00 

Fletcher's  Appeal.     18mo.  50 

Fletcher,  Mrs.,  Consort  of  the  Rev.  J.  Fletcher,  Life 

of.     By  the  Rev.  H.  Moore.     12mo.  75 

Fragments  for  Young  People.     72mo.  cambric  25 

Do,  morocco  tucks,  gilt  edges  38 

Friendly  Hints  to  the  Youth  of  both  Sexes,  with  An- 
ecdotes.    By  Rev.  J.  Doncaster.     24mo.  25 

Gardiner,    Colonel,    Life    of.       By    Dr.    Doddridge. 

18mo.  31 

Garrettson,  Rev.   Freeborn,  Life  of.     By  N.  Bangs, 

D.  D.     12mo.  75 

Germs  of  Thought,  intended  to  promote  the  Mental 

and  Religious  Improvement  of  Youth.     By  Rev.  Thomas  Wood. 
18mo.  38 

Guilty  Tongue,  or  the  Power  of  Instruction.     By  the 

author  of  "  The  Week."     18mo.  31 

Harmonist ;  being  a  Collection  of  Tunes  and  Anthems 

for    the   various   Metres  in   the  Methodist    Hymn   Book ;    half 

bound,  1   00 

Do,             full  bound,  sheep  plain  1  38 

Do,              calf  plain  1   63 

Do,             calf  extra  2  13 

History    of   the  Methodist    Episcopal    Church,  from 

1766  to  1840.     By  N.  Bangs,  D.  D  ,  4  vols.  12mo.  4  00 

House  of  the  Thief,  or  the  Eighth  Commandment  prac- 
tically illustrated.    By  the  author  of  "The  Week."     18mo.     38 
Hyacinth,  the  Broken.  By  Mrs.  Sherwood.  ISmo.     25 

Index  and  Dictionary  of  the  Holy  Bible,  designed  to 

facilitate  the  Study  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.     By  Rev.  J.  Barr. 
12mo.  50 

Indian  Captivity,  a  Narrative  of  the  Capture  of  the 

Rev.  O.  M.  Spencer  by  the  Indians.     18mo.  31 

Inquirer  after  Salvation,  the,  affectionately  addressed  ; 

and  the   New  Convert  directed    and    encouraged.     By  Rev.  R. 
Young  20 

(Separate,  in  paper  covers,  each  6  cts.) 


GFNERAL  CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 
Discipline,  Administration  of     By  Bishop  Hedding. 

24mo.  $0  25 

Doctrinal  Tracts.     18mo.  5p 

Downing,  Rev.  J.  W.,  A.  M.,  Remains  of,  with  a  brief 

Memoir.     Edited  by  Rev.  E.  H.  Downing,  A.  M.   12mo.  75 

Ecclesiastical  History,  by  Eusebius,  translated  from 

the  original  by  Rev.  C.  F.  Cruse.     8vo.  sheep  2  50 

Ecclesiastical  History.  By  Martin  Ruter,  D.  D.    1  vol. 

8vo.,  sheep  plain  2  00 

Do,  calf  plain  2  25 

Do,  calf  gilt  2  50 

Do,  calf  extra  2  75 

Eloquence,  the  Principles  of,  adapted  to  the  Pulpit  and 

the  Bar.  By  the  Abbe  Maury.  Translated  from  the  French, 
with  Additional  Notes  by  John  Neale  Lake,  A.  M.  ;  to  which  are 
added  Mr.  Wesley's  Directions  concerning  Pronunciation  and  Ges- 
ture.    18mo.  50 

Emory,  John,  D.  D.,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  Life  of.  By  his  Eldest  Son.  Svo.  sheep  1  50 
Do,  calf  1  75 

Do,  calf  gilt  2  00 

Do,  calf  extra  2  25 

Do,  Life  and  Works  of ;  comprising  his  Defence  of  our  Fathers,  and 
Episcopal  Controversy  ;  complete  in  one  volume,  sheep         2  50 
Do,  calf  2  75 

Do,  calf  gilt  3  00 

Do,  calf  extra  3  50 

Episcopal  Controversy  Reviewed.     By  John  Emory, 

D.  D.,  with  Portrait.     Svo.,  sheep  1  50 

Episcopius,  Simon,  D.  D.,  and  Professor  of  Theology 

in  the  University  of  Leyden,  Memoir  of ;  with  a  Brief  Account  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  &c.,  &c.  By  Frederick  Calder.   12mo.     1  00 

Errors    of   Socinianism.      By    Rev.    Edward   Hare. 

12mo.  75 

Evangelical  Rambler,  in  13  vols.,  18mo.  4  06 

Evangelical  Spectator,  in  4  vols.,  18mo.  i  25 

Experience  of  Several  Eminent  Methodist  Preachers, 

with  an  Account  of  their  Call  to,  and  Success  in,  the  Ministry. 
In  a  series  of  Letters,  written  by  themselves,  to  the  Rev.  John 
Wesley.     12mo.  75 

Falkland,  Lady,  Life  of.     18mo.  19 

Farmer  Goodall  and  his  Friend.  By  the  author  of  "  The 

Last  Day  of  the  Week."     18mo.  37 

Fatal  Feud,  the.    By  Rev.  G.  A.  Raybold.  ISmo.    31 
Filial  Duty  Recommended.     18mo.  31 


GENERAL  CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 
Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the   Bible.     By  T.  H. 

Home.  12mo.  $1  00 

Jane  and  her  Teacher.  18mo.  25 

Jerusalem,  Destruction  of,    abridged  from  Josephus, 

by  Rev.  D.  Smith.     18mp.  38 

Jones,  Mrs.,  Narrative  of  Wreck  of  Missionaries.  8vo. 

pamphlet  09 

Josephus'  Works,  1  vol.  8vo.  sheep  2  00 

Josephus'   Works,  a   new   and  elegant  edition,   with 

plates,  royal  8vo.  3  00 

Juhana  Oakley.     By  Mrs.  Sherwood.     IBmo.        ,    25 
Justification,  Scripture  Doctrine  of.     By  Rev.  Edward 

Hare.     18mo.  44 

King,  Grace,  Life  of.  18mo.  38 

Lectures  to  Children.     By  Rev.  G.  Coles.  18mo.     31 
Lectures  on   Proverbs.     By  Rev.  G.   Coles.    Vol.  L 

ISmo.  38 

Letter  to  a  Junior  Preacher.     By  John  Hannah,  D.D. 

24rao.  25 

Longden,  Henry,  Life  of:  compiled  from  his  Memoirs, 

Letters,  Diary,  &c.     ISmo.  38 

Love-Feast  Tickets,  per  thousand  75 

Love  to  the  Saviour.     By  Rev.  D.  Smith.  18mo.    31 

Magazine,   Child's,  in  20  vols.,  18mo.  6  00 

Magazine,  Sunday  School,  in  13  vols.  4  06 

M'AUum,  Rev.  Daniel,  M.  D.,  Remains  of,  with   a 

Memoir.    12mo.  75 

Mammon,  or   Covetousness,  the  Sin  of  the  Christian 

Church.     By  Rev.  John  Harris.     18mo.  50 

Manners    and    Customs    of    the    Ancient    Israelites. 

Translated  from  the   French  of  Claude  Fleury,  by  Adam  Clarke, 

LL.  D.     ISmo.  50 

Marriage    Certificates,   with    Engravings,  per  dozen, 

without  dis.  50 

Mary,  or  the  Young  Christian,  an  authentic  narrative. 

18mo.  25 

Maxwell,  Lady,  Life  of,  compiled  from  her  volum- 
inous Diary  and  Correspondence,  by  the  Rev.  J.  Lancaster. 
12mo.  1  00 

Minutes  of  Conference,  from  1773  to  1839.  2  vols 
8vo.  5  00 


DATE  DUE                            1 

J«b«a^ 

1 

"^3 """"" 

w 

i 

'^■^ 

I^K. 

It 

1 

CAYLORO 

rRlNTCOINU.S.A. 

I 


m 


BV665 .P88 

An  essay  on  apostolical  succession 

Princeton  Theological  Semlnary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00125  1000 


